Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
ORDER I.A. no. 209 of 2012 in DFR No. 1030 of 2012 has been filed by Kerala State Electricity Board for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal against the interim order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Respondents no. 1 and 2 are the State Commission and KINESCO Power and Utilities (P) Ltd., a distribution licensee in some areas in the State respectively. While there is no difficulty in condoning the delay of 10 days due to sufficient reasons pointed out in the IA, we deemed it fit to go into the merits of the case for admission in view of the fact that the Appeal is being filed against the interim order of the State Commission. Accordingly, we heard the learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. We notice that the impugned interim order has been passed directing the Applicant to supply power to the extent of 500 KVA to the Respondent no.2 at Palakkad at 11 kV voltage level for a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
ORDER Rakesh Nath, Technical Member, J. 1. M/s. Beverly Park II Condominium has filed I.A. No. 100 of 2012 for condonation of delay of 469 days in filing the Appeal against the order dated 03.09.2010 of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (“State Commission”). The State Commission and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., the distribution licensee are the Respondents 1 and 2 respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The Applicant is a consumer of the Respondent no. 2 and takes bulk supply at 11kV voltage level for use of the residents of the Condominium and for running common facilities. 2.2 On 13.10.2006 the State Commission by its order allowed creation of a separate category called “Bulk Domestic Supply” and introduction of separate schedule of tariff for the said category subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the connected load of residential and domestic use should be at least 85% of the total conn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
ORDER M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. These two applications to condone the delay in refiling the two Appeals in IA No.187 of 2012 and 188 of 2012 are being disposed of through this common order as the issue in both the matters is common. 2. M/S. OPG Power Generation Private Limited filed a Petition before the Tamil Nadu State Commission seeking for a direction against the TANTRANSCO, 2nd Respondent to make payment to the Applicant for the infirm power supplied to them. 3. Similarly, the same Company filed another application before the Tamil Nadu State Commission praying for the fixation of the rates at which Tamil Nadu Electricity Board should make the payments for the infirm power supply from the date of commissioning till the commercial operation date and for the direction for the payment of such amount. 4. The Tamil Nadu State Commission passed the impugned order in the first Petition dismissing that Petition with the finding that no amount is payable to the Applicant for p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. Whether a new transmission line charged from one end by the transmission licensee without the switchgear, protection system and metering arrangement at the other end not in the scope of works of the transmission licensee being ready and without flow of power on the line could be declared as commissioned for the purpose of raising the transmission charges on the beneficiaries? The above question that has been posed in this Appeal is required to be answered by us. 2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., the successor in interest of Punjab State Electricity Board is the Appellant. Power Grid Corporation of India (“POWERGRID”), a transmission licensee, is the Respondent no.1. The power utilities of Northern Region and the beneficiaries of 400 kV Barh-Balia double circuit transmission line constructed by POWERGRID are the Respondents 2 to 17. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“Central Commission”) is the Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
ORDER M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON, J. 1. M/S. Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited, the Appellant filed two Petitions claiming the re-imbursement of Minimum Alternate Tax and the Capacity Charges before Andhra State Commission. The said Petitions were dismissed by the State Commission on 13.6.2011 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by these impugned orders, the Appellant has filed these two Appeals in Appeal No.128 of 2011 and Appeal No.129 of 2011 before this Tribunal. Since the issue raised in both these Appeals is common, this common judgment is rendered. 2. Let us deal with the facts of each of the Appeals. 3. The brief facts in Appeal No.128 of 2011 are as follows: (1) This Appeal relates to claim of the Appellant for reimbursement of Minimum Alternate Tax. (2) M/s. LANCO Kondapalli Power Private Limited, the Appellant herein, is engaged in the generation and sale of electricity having its Registered Office in Hitec City, Madhapur, Hyderabad. It has set-up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
ORDER The IA Nos. 171 of 2012 in Appeal No.82 of 2012 and 183 of 2012 in Appeal no.90 of 2012 have been filed by BSES Rajdhani Power Ld and BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. respectively praying for grant of an interim stay of retrospective levy of tariff by NTPC Ltd., National Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. and Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Respondents 2 to 4 herein, pursuant to provisional tariff orders passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“Central Commission”) in July/August, 2011 under Regulation 5(4) of the Tariff Regulations, 2009. 2. The Petitioners/Appellants are the distribution licensees operating in NCT of Delhi. The Respondent no.1 is the Central Commission. The Respondent nos.2 and 3 are the Central Sector generating companies. The Respondent no.4 is the transmission licensee. 3. The Appellants have filed these appeals challenging the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Central Commission in which it has upheld the retrospective levy of tariff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.9.2010 passed by the Gujarat State Regulatory Commission, the Respondent No.-3 herein whereby it held that the transmission line laid by the appellant, M/s Tarini Infrastructure Ltd. which was involved in the development of small and medium hydro electric projects in India from the switch yard at Madhuban Dam to Mota Pandha to be the line belonging to the Gujarat Electricity Transmission Corporation Ltd., the Respondent No.1 herein. The facts are these. 2. The Govt. of Gujarat issued a policy for promoting the development of hydel projects in the State. In terms of the policy, the Narmada Water Resources, a statutory body of the Govt. of Gujarat called for the bids from private parties for building small hydro generation projects in River Daman Ganga at Madhuban reservoir which is about 35 kms. from Bapi in the district of Valsad. The Daman Ganga dam is a major irrigation project across the river Daman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. M/S Tarini Infrastructure limited, a company under the Companies Act,1956 responded to the call of Narmada Water Resources, a statutory body under the Government of Gujarat for participation in the bids from private parties for building Small Hydro Power Generation Project in river Daman Ganga at Madhuban reservoir which is about 35 kilometres from Vapi in the district of Valsad, and was successful in getting its bid accepted and accordingly was awarded the Concession for building two Small Hydro Power Projects of 3 MW (2X 1500KW) and 2.6 MW ( 1X 2600 KW) at Daman Ganga. The ‘Bid Document’ was prepared and issued on 9.11.2006 by the Govt. of Gujarat. The Concession Agreement between the Narmada Water Resources and the appellant was executed on 27.8.2007 and the power plants were to be at a distance of 1km from each other and were to be connected to the nearest sub- station of the Respondent No. 1 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (GUVNL) whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. When the appeal was being heard continuously for a number of days the learned counsels for both the parties would for the sake of convenience and also, of course, in lighter vein term the appeal as a ’good will’ case because the whole gamut of the appeal centres round the question whether the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no.1 herein, was legally justified in making some alleged adverse criticisms against the appellant, namely Reliance Infrastructure Limited, a company under the Companies Act, 1956 in its 4-page order dated 9th September, 2010 passed in case no 121 of 2008. 2. Maintainability of the appeal in its present form and prayer has been no doubt, questioned by the Commission which we will advert to at the appropriate place ; for the present the essence of the order as has been expressed in paragraph 7 thereof is reproduced below after which we will revert back to the background of the case in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. The review petitioners are one set of appellants in a batch of 10 appeals being No. 57 of 2008, 155 of 2007, 125 of 2008, 45 of 2010, 40 of 2010, 196 of 2009, 199 of 2009, 163 of 2010, 6 of 2011 and 144 of 2010. It is the last appeal as mentioned above wherein the present review petitioners were the appellants (Appeal No.144of 2010). This batch of 10 appeals was decided by a comprehensive and consolidated judgment on 11.1.2012 by this Tribunal and 22 issues involved therein were decided. Of them, the issue no.11 was “whether the Commission was justified in disallowing rebate?” 2. This issue was decided by this Tribunal with the following reasoning which we quote herein below:- 54. The question of withdrawal or discontinuance of rebate has been agitating the industrial consumers right from the tariff of FY 2007-08. With regard to this issue there has been, however, no positive affirmative indication by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 4 of 2005...
Tag this Judgment!