Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
AS PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) is the Appellant herein. Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) is the 1st Respondent. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Central Commission) is the 2nd Respondent. 2. The Appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the Central Commission in the Petition No. 163/08 filed by the NLC, the Ist respondent herein allowing their prayer seeking for the refund of the excess rebate availed by the Appellant and praying for reimbursement of the Income-tax by the Electricity Board to NLC. To understand the core of controversy of this case, it is better to refer to the relevant facts. They are as follows. 3. The Appellant Electricity Board (TNEB) is the Distribution Licensee. The Ist Respondent NLC is owning generating stations at Neyveli. There were several agreements between them for the purchase and supply of Power. The Ist agreement was in the year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Order under section 123 of Electricity Act 2003 The two appeals viz. the appeal Nos. 26/2007 and 36/2007 arise out of the same impugned order viz the one dated 08 Feb. 2007 passed on a petition filed by the Noida Power Company Ltd (NPCL for short). The detailed facts of the case are available in the two judgments of the two members of the bench. For the purpose of the present order under section 123 Electricity Act 2003, we need to place only the basic facts. 2. NPCL contracted to purchase 10 MW of power from UPPCL on marginal cost. The UPPCL commenced supply of 10 MW w.e.f. 10 May 2006 and raised the bill for this supply for the first time in September 2006. Subsequently in November 2007 UPPCL revised the bill. The NPCL found the rate charged being higher than its expectations and defaulted in paying the bill. UPPCL vide its letter dated 04 Nov. 2001 threatened to discontinue the additional supply of power and restrict the power supply to the original 45 MW for which the parties had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL405
1. The Appellant Tata Power Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TPC) is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956. The Appellant is a generating company within the meaning of Clause (28) of Section 2 of Electricity Act, 2003 and also Clause (4A) of Section 2 and a bulk licensee within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ESA, 1948). TPC has been generating and distributing electricity to consumers in Mumbai area for over 80 years. It directly supplies power to railways, refineries, textile mills, port and other vital installations in addition to other industrial, commercial and domestic consumers and also through two distribution Licensees viz BSES (Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Ltd. - now known as Reliance Energy Ltd. - REL) and BEST (Brihan Mumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking). The first Respondent, i.e., Reliance Energy Limited (hereinafter referred as REL) formerly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL267
1. The Appellant M/s Reliance Energy Limited has preferred this appeal seeking to set aside the directions and observations made against the Appellants by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission in its order bearing No. 283 dated 28th February, 2005 (wrongly set out as 1^st March, 2005) in Case No. 115 of 2004 in so far as the same is against the Appellant.2. Heard Mr. J.J.Bhatt, Senior Advocate appearing along with Ms. Anjali Chandurkar & Mr. Syed Naqvi for the Appellant, Mr. R.K. Mehta for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Sanjay Sen, Advocate for the 2^nd Respondent, Mr.S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate for Respondents 3 to 5 and Mr. M.G.Ramachandran advocate appearing for the 6th Respondent, Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC).3. The Appellants mainly challenged that portion of the Order, Para "DC" of the Order dated 1^st March, 2005 in so far as the same is against the Appellant. For immediate reference the portion of the Order which is challenged in this appeal is extracted here ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeal presents a pure question of law: whether the Tribunal can give directions to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to amend, modify or relax any of the provision of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for determination of Generating Tariff) Regulations, 2009 on the alleged ground that it has been found impossible for the appellant, a generating company within the meaning of Section 2 (28) of the Electricity Act,2003 to reach the benchmarks or the yardstick fixed by the Commission in its said Regulations, 2009, by virtue of the provisions contained in the said Regulations conferring power to the Commission to amend the Regulations. 2. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, following the reforms in the power sector was bifurcated and restructured as a result of which the function of power generation has been vested with the appellant. The function of retail distribution of power has been vested ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. These are the two Appeals filed by two different Appellants as against the common impugned order dated 27.12.2011 passed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Delhi Commission) dismissing the Petitions filed by the Appellants on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to go into the issue raised by the Appellants. Since the issue is common and both the Appeals are against the common impugned order, we deliver this common judgment. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Appellants namely BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and BSES Yamuna Power Limited entered into separate Power Purchase Agreements with the NTPC, the 2nd Respondent for taking supply of power from its various Generation Stations agreeing specifically to various terms including Letter of Credit and its enforceability, if the payment was not made within 30 days by the Appellant. (b) The Appellants did not maintain the requisite Letter of Credit in terms of the PPA and did not also compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles and has a manufacturing facility at Manesar, Haryana. For the purposes of its business activities, Appellant has established a captive power plant having a capacity of 66 MW within the premises of its facility at Manesar, Haryana. 2. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) is the 1st Respondent herein. 2nd Respondent, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) is one of the distribution licensees in the state of Haryana having Southern Haryana as its area of supply. The premises of the Appellant at Manesar fall within the area of supply of the 2nd Respondent (DHBVNL). 3. The Commission has passed the impugned tariff order on 27th May 2011 determining the Annual Revenue Requirement of the 2nd Respondent and retail tariff for the year 2011-12. The Appellant got aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is the Appellant herein. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the impugned order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Regulatory Commission (R-1) (State Commission) allowing the Review Petition filed by the Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (R-2). 2. The short facts are as follows:- (a) The Appellant, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Ajmer Vidyut) is the Distribution Licensee in the State of Rajasthan. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited, the second Respondent is involved in mining of rock phosphate located in Udaipur District of Rajasthan. (b) Both the Appellant and Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (R-2) are the public Sector undertakings of the State of Rajasthan. (c) Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (R-2), had set-up various Wind Energy Power Plants in Jaisalmer District of Rajasthan. A Wheeling and Banking Agreement was entered into ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Per Hon’ble Shri H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member. 1. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant, Chattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (CSPDCL in short) against the order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the Chattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission in short) in Petition No. 5 of 2008 wherein, the State Commission has considered the Captive Generating Plant status of the Respondent No. 1 and its sister concerns with regard to Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 (The Rules in short). 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows. 3. M/s Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd., the first Respondent had filed Petition No. 36 of 2005 before the State Commission for permission to supply power through open access to six “sister concerns” which together held 9.04% of its equity as captive consumers of its 20 MW captive power plant. By an order dated 5.4.2006, the Commission rejected the petition as the said sister concerns held only 9.04% and not at least 26% as req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
MR. RAKESH NATH, TEHNICAL MEMBER Appeal No. 16 of 2010 has been filed by Starwire (India) Limited and other generating companies engaged in the business of setting up biomass based generating stations. The Appellants have challenged State Commission’s order dated 6.11.2009 determining the tariff for sale of electricity by biomass based energy developers to the distribution licensees in the State of Haryana. 2. Respondent No. 1 is Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission). Respondent No. 2 and 3 are Uttar Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited and Dakshin Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Ltd. respectively, the distribution licensees. Respondent No. 4 is Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, the State transmission licensee and STU. Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency (HAREDA), a State Government agency for promoting renewable energy sources, is Respondent No.5. 3. Appeal No. 117 of 2010 has been filed by Uttar Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Dakshin Har...
Tag this Judgment!