Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Judgment Rakesh Nath, Tehnical Member: 1. These Appeals have been filed by the Associations of consumers challenging the impugned order dated 7.3.2013 passed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) implementing the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Solar Energy Policy, 2012 of the State Government consequent on the policy directive issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The Appellants in Appeals 92 of 2013 and 109 of 2013 are Tamil Nadu Electricity Consumers Association and Tamil Nadu Spinning Mills Association respectively. The State Commission is the Respondent no. 1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) is the Respondent no. 2. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: (A) In pursuance of Section 86(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the State Commission notified the TNERC Renewable Energy Purchase Obligation Regulations 2010 specifying that every obligated entity manda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. The comprehensive impugned tariff order for Wind Energy dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission is challenged in these Appeals by different parties. 2. Beta Wind Farm Private Limited has filed the Appeal No.197 of 2012, Indian Wind Power Association has filed Appeal No.198 of 2012. The various Associations of Spinning Mills have filed the Appeal Nos 200, 208 of 2012 and 6 of 2013. Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association has filed the Appeal No.201 of 2012. 3. Beta Wind Farm Private Limited, the Appellant in Appeal No.197 of 2012 is a Wind Energy Generator. 4. Indian Wind Power Associations, the Appellant in Appeal No.198 of 2012 is an Association of Wind Energy Generators. Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association, the Appellant in Appeal No.201 of 2012 is an Association of manufacturers of Wind Turbines. 5. The various Associations of Spinning Mills who are the Appellants in Appeal No.200, 208 of 2012 and 6 of 2013 have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson 1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.2011, directing the Appellant to pay the amount to be calculated by the generator, the 1st Respondent, after working of the invoices from the year 2001 to 2006, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 3. The short facts are as follows: (a) PPN Power Company Private Limited, the 1st Respondent, is a Generating Company. The said Power Company entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the predecessor of the Appellant, on 3.01.1997 for sale of the entire energy generated by the Power Generating Station pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Power Purchase Agreement. Thereafter, the PPN Power Company set up a 330.5 MW Power Generating Station. It had been generating power through a combine cycled gas turbine power station in Nagapattinam District of Tamil Nadu. The Power Company commenced its commerci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited is the Appellant herein. M/s. LANCO Tanjore Power Company Limited is the First Respondent. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the Second Respondent. 2. The Appellant, in this Appeal, has challenged the order passed by the State Commission dated 28.9.2012 holding in favour of the First Respondent that the Notice of Recovery sent by the Appellant, was not maintainable. 3. The relevant facts that are required for disposal of the Appeal in short, are as under: (a) M/s. LANCO Tanjore Power Company Limited earlier known as M/s. Aban Power Company Limited was selected through the process of international competitive bidding by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the establishment of 126.13 MW Naptha based Combined Cycle Power Project in Karur District Tamil Nadu. (b) The Power Purchase Agreement was entered into between the Appellant and the First Respondent for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:22-02-2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA WRIT PETITION NO:4302 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 33/11 K.V. Thirumangalam S.S. Complex, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040 .. Petitioner vs 1. G. Shankar 2. The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman, No.17, Third Main Road, Seethammal Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the proceedings of the second respondent in O.P.No.2 of 2006 dated 12.5.2006 and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.G. Vasudevan For 1st respondent : Mr.N.L. Rajha ORDER The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/West has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court to challenge the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman dated 12.5.2006 i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. As the issues involved were similar, we have heard the following six appeals together: 2. Appeal No. 41 of 2007 has been filed by BEST Undertaking (BEST in short), being an undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai initially against Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC or the Commission in short) order dated April 02, 2007.Subsequently, by an amendment Tata Power Company Ltd. (TPC in short) Reliance Energy Ltd. (REL in short) were also added as respondents No.2 and 3 to this appeal. This appeal challenges MERC order dated April 02, 2007 in TPC (Generation) Multi Year Tariff Petition for the control period FY 2007-08 to FY 2009-10. The challenges in this appeal relate to the allocation of the electricity generated by TPC through its generation business {TPC(G) in short}. In the impugned order, MERC had, inter-alia, held that net energy for FY 2007-08 was to be allocated to the three Distribution Companies namely BEST, REL(Distribution) {REL (D) in sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. M/s Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., MSPGCL in short, (the Appellant) is a company formed under the Government of Maharashtra General Resolution no. ELA-003/P.K.8588/Bhag-2/Urja-5 dated 24 January 2005, after re-organization of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The Appellant is in the business of generation of electricity in the State of Maharashtra. The Appellant submitted its application for approval of Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and Tariff Petition for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 in February 2006 before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC or the Commission).MERC through its order dated 7 September 2006 determined the ARR and tariff for the Appellant. The Appellant sought a review of the above order of the MERC on various issues through petition filed on 19 October 2006, which was disposed of by the MERC through its order dated 07 December 2006. The Appellant was aggrieved by the said order of the MERC, hence has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Manju Goel, Judicial Member, J. 01) The appellant is a company engaged in the business of distribution and retail supply of electricity in the specified areas of south and south-west of Delhi and is a successor entity of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB). The appellant has challenged the tariff order dated 23.02.08 whereby the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission for short) has passed an order on determination of Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) of the appellant for the FY 2008 to 2011 and the distribution tariff for the period of 01.03.08 to 31.03.09 for which the appellant had filed petition No. 51 of 2007. The appellant alleges that the Commission has disallowed the projections made by the appellant and in the process has caused a loss of Rs.886.07 Crores in the FY 2008 and Rs.1458.65 Crores in the FY 2009. The disallowance made by the Commission has been broken up in three parts, namely: (a) Those relating to truing up by the Commission pursuant to the o...
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 : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1843 OF2021MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED ....Appellant(s) versus MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS. .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.This appeal, under Section 125 of the Electricity Act 2003, is against a judgment and order dated 27th April 2021 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, hereinafter referred to, in short, as APTEL, dismissing Appeal No.77 of 2018 filed by the Appellant, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., and affirming an order dated 16th November, 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, hereinafter referred to, in short, as MERC, whereby MERC dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, being Case No.24 of 2017, 1 rejecting the contention of the Appellant that, introduction by Reserve Bank of India of the Base Rate system and the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!