Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: sashastra seema bal act 2007 section 140 recovery of fine Sorted by: old Court: appellate tribunal for electricity aptel Page 1 of about 10 results (0.110 seconds)

Dpsc Vs. West Bengal Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL860

..... .6. the tariff order was passed on 3rd june, 2004. the appellant submitted review application in time before the regulatory commission in terms of section 94(1)(f) of the act. the review petition was entertained and was disposed of on 22nd august, 2005. the tariff order was passed on 3rd june, 2004 for the financial year 2003-04 and 2004 ..... august, 2005 passed in case no.tp(r)9/ 2004-05 in the tariff application of dpsc ltd. passed under section 62(1) read with section 185 of the electricity act, 2003 for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05. (i) disallowance of depreciation charge on new 10 mw dg set at chinakuri (new) power station; (ii) fixation of coal consumer .....

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Delhi Electricity Regulatory

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... f.11(118)/2001-power/ - in exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 and other applicable provisions of the delhi electricity reform act, 2000 (delhi act no. 2 of 2001) and pursuant to the decision made by the government of national capital territory of delhi on the restructuring of delhi ..... the commission in issuing directions to create regulatory asset, while approving annual revenue requirement and determining the tariff? (b) whether the regulatory commission has acted illegally in directing the discoms to create regulatory asset while approving annual revenue requirement and determining tariff? (c) whether the appellant in each of ..... delhi has been violated by the commission in issuing directions to create regulatory asset, while determining the tariff? (ii) whether the regulatory commission has acted illegally in directing the discoms to create regulatory asset while determining tariff? (iii) whether the appellants themselves came forward and submitted proposal to create " .....

Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. and ors.

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL405

..... govt. of maharashtra in due course." merc constituted and therefore tariff had to be determined by merc under section 22(1) of the electricity regulatory commissions act, 1998 ("erc act, 1998").the committee made its report. [note: bses' representative did not sign the report] the gom passed the following order:" 1. the assumptions that ..... four weeks from today. the bank guarantees will be kept in force till passing of appropriate order by the appellate tribunal, and thereafter the parties shall act in accordance with the order that the appellate tribunal may pass. accordingly, these appeals are disposed of.53. as directed, this appeal has been preferred bytpc ..... that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law the tariff for supply of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail shall be subject to the provisions of the act and shall be determined by the state commission. this clearly ousts the jurisdiction of any other authority to determine the tariff.74. the learned senior counsel .....

Reliance Energy Limited Vs. the Grid Corporation of Orissa

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL267

..... and ancillary powers to issue directions to the appellant herein as contended by respondents? 15. all three points could be considered together. the orissa electricity reform act, 1995, is a legislation of the orissa state legislature enacted to provide for restructuring of the electricity industry, for the rationalization of the generation, transmission, ..... area of license.suffice to state that each one of the three discoms is independently licensed to distribute power as an independent company registered under the companies act, 1956.22. there is no dispute that the three discoms are separate and independent legal entities distinct from the appellant rel, which is also an ..... a 51 per cent share holder in three discoms, gridco being the other major share holder.27. appellant being separate legal entity established under the companies act, 1956 and being distinct from discoms in every respect it is obviously clear that oerc has no jurisdiction to issue directions against the appellant.28. .....

Global Energy Limited Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2007)LCAPTEL1350

..... ltd., a sister concern of the appellant, before board for industrial and financial reconstruction (bifr) in a petition under the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1986 for re-habilitation and resuscitation of belgundi cements ltd. and the appeal paper book filed before the appellate authority for industrial and financial reconstruction (aaifr ..... provisions. the learned senior counsel also highlighted the fact that labour enforcement officer (central) had even filed a complaint under section 22a of the minimum wages act, 1948 against the gea energy system (india) ltd. for violation of the provisions of the minimum wages (central) rules, 1950. the upshot of his ..... has ascertained that there is no objection to the grant of the licence on the part of the central government. 3. a person intending to act as a transmission licensee shall, immediately on making the application, forward a copy of such application to the central transmission utility or the state transmission .....

Vemagiri Power Generation Vs. Transmission Corporation of A.P.

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... that even though section 11 starts with a non-obstante clause which provides that the functions are to be exercised "notwithstanding anything contained in the indian telegraph act, 1885" the section nowhere provides that the functions are to be exercised notwithstanding "any contract or any decrees or orders of courts." it is well ..... is placed on the word 'regulate', it will hamper and arrest the growth of the electricity sector. in that event the whole object of the electricity act, 2003 will be defeated, which, inter alia, mandates taking of measures conductive to the development of electricity sector. the said provision cannot be construed to ..... counsel for the appellant, it will be useful to set out the aforesaid relevant provisions for answer to the question: (1) subject to the provisions of this act, the commission shall be responsible to discharge amongst others, the following functions namely: (i) to regulate the assets, properties and interest in properties concerning or .....

Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs. Uttaranchal Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2008)LCAPTEL182

..... uttar pradesh rajya vidyut utpadan nigam limited; (b) the uttar pradesh electricity regulatory commission; and (c) the state warehousing corporation established under the warehousing corporation act, 1962 (58 of 1962) shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function in those areas in respect of which they were functioning immediately before ..... or after the appointed day, a state power corporation, an electricity regulatory commission or a state warehousing corporation for the state under the provisions of this act relating to such power corporation, commission or warehousing corporation; and if such a power corporation, commission or warehousing corporation is so constituted in either of ..... to in sub-section (1)- 11. so far as the applicability of the existing laws is concerned, the following two provisions of the re-organisation act are relevant: 86. territorial extent of laws - the provisions of part ii shall not be deemed to have affected any change in the territories to which .....

Northern Railway Vs. Uttaranchal Electricity

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... maintains all the associated network infrastructure of ht lines, transformers etc. to cater to the traction points. e) the commission has violated the provision of section 43 of the electricity act 2003 by directing the respondent no. 2 to limit the supply of electricity to the appellant only to the extent of available surplus electricity subject to the ceiling of 11 ..... that on principle this condition needs to be set aside as the appellant is a consumer like any other consumer and entitled to power under section 43 of the electricity act 2003 which requires a distribution licensee to supply electricity to the premises of every owner or occupier on application from him. this argument could not be contradicted by mr.tripathy .....

Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. Vs. the Chhattisgarh State

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... supply of power to only ht industrial consumers could be made only after permission of government was obtained under section 28 of the indian electricity act 1910 act. so far as the 'no objection' vide letter dated 28.02.04 is concerned the commission felt that the same did not amount ..... two conditions: (ii) the applicant company shall submit application for licence/permission to the state electricity regulatory commission as per provisions of electricity act 2003 immediately on constitution of state electricity regulatory commission (iii) incase the state regulatory commission does not grant licence/permission for direct power supply ..... sanction of industry department. (2) the applicant company shall submit application for licence/permission from state electricity regularity commission as per provisions of electricity act 2003 immediately on constitution of state electricity regulatory commission. (3) in case the state regulatory commission does not grant licence/permission for direct .....

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporaton Vs. Noida Power Company Ltd. and Uttar

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

..... in procurement of electricity and is violative of the clause 5.3.3. of the national electricity policy and clearly attracts the provisions of section 60 of the act providing suo motto power to the commission to issue directions to prevent adverse effect on competition, even if the agreement is valid. 9. the judgment of ..... held by the erstwhile up state electricity board. the judicial member further holds that the transaction in question is not hit by section 60 of the electricity act 2003. 7. the judicial member further finds that npcl never alleged that the impugned agreement had any adverse effect on competition and that the presumed dominant position ..... clearly discriminatory and un-constitutional. iii) the agreement dated 08.05.2006 was contrary to law and therefore not binding and enforceable under section 23 of the contract act. iv) upplc being a state transmission utility is not permitted to trade in electricity. v) there is no clear concept of marginal cost. therefore so called .....