Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 600 (4.31 seconds)
Documents citing Ptc India Ltd vs Central Electricity Reg. Comm. ... on 15 March, 2010

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 2 February, 2024

93. Mrs. Suparna Srivastava, Learne Counsel for the CTUIL, would submit that, in exercise of its regulatory power and by force of the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court, in PTC India Ltd. Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [(2010) 4 SCC 603], the CERC has ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Judgement in Appeal No. 383 of 2022 Page 56 of 97 passed the following Orders: (I) Order dated 5.10.2017 in Petition No.211/MP/2011: Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Western Regional Load Despatch Centre decided vide Order dated 5.10.2017; (II) Order dated 30.3.2017 in Petition No.291/MP/2015: Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. & Ors. v. Southern Region Load Despatch Centre & Anr. decided vide Order dated 30.3.2017; and (III) Order dated 9.3.2018 in Petition No. 20/MP/2017: Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Limited v. Central Transmission Utility & Ors. decided vide Order dated 9.3.2018; by way of the above Orders, the CERC has held that the status of "deemed LTA" is not applicable to a CSGS beneficiary who is an embedded customer of a State, and is drawing its share of power by using the State network only and, as such, no ISTS charges are to be leviable on it; each of the above Orders have been made prospective in their application, and the CERC has further directed its staff "to examine the issue and propose amendment to the Sharing Regulations for clarity"; in this manner, by exercise of the regulatory powers through judicial Orders, the CERC has prescribed for the exclusion of STU lines from the computation of ISTS transmission charges and losses allocations, while carrying a State's share of power from a CSGS; none of the parties in the above mentioned Orders, have challenged the said Orders and have accepted the dispensation therein; during the proceedings, the Appellants have relied upon a compilation of Judgments to support their contention of retrospective applicability of the impugned Order; however, the said Judgments are in respect of tariff and are therefore inapplicable to the present case; and, in view of the submissions made hereinabove and more particularly in the Reply filed to the present Appeal, there is no infirmity in the impugned Order of the CERC so as to warrant interreference from this Tribunal.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 109 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

India Energy Exchange Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 13 February, 2026

While we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the three officers of the CERC, since the investigation by SEBI is still ongoing and the order relied upon is an ex-parte ad interim order, we must remind the CERC of the onerous responsibilities it must discharge as a market regulator, and that the Electricity Act, 2003 has mandated establishment of an independent and transparent Regulatory Commission entrusted with wide-ranging responsibilities and objectives, inter-alia, including protection of the consumers of electricity. (PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 4 SCC 603).
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 124 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited vs Delhi Electricity Regulation ... on 23 March, 2023

91. Exercise of the decision-making power is not dependent upon the existence of Regulations. To regulate is an exercise which is different from making of the Regulations. If there is a Regulation, then the measure under Section 86(1) should be in conformity with such Regulations made under Section 181. However, making of a Regulation under Section 181 is not a pre-condition to the Commission taking steps/measures under Section 86(1). An order can be passed by the Commission even in the absence of a regulation under Section 181. (PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission: (2010) 4 SCC 603)
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 100 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Noida Power Company Limited vs Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 28 November, 2025

Learned senior counsel submitted that the State Commission has violated the settled principles of law inasmuch as (i) if the income cannot be reasonably linked to any cost item allowed by the Commission as part of the ARR, the same should not be adjusted against the ARR of the Appellant, in the absence of specific Regulations, as noted in "Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission" [(2008) SCC Online APTEL 46)]; ( ii) Appropriate Commissions ought to follow the regulations framed under the Electricity Act, 2003, as held in "PTC India Limited Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission" (2010) 4 SCC 603; ( iii) At the stage of 'truing up', the Appropriate Commission cannot change the rules/methodology used in the initial tariff determination by changing the basic principles, premises and issues involved in the initial projection Judgment in Appeal No.98 of 2021 & 465 of 2023 Page 180 of 359 of ARR, as noted in "BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission" (2022) SCC Online SC 1450; (iv) The 'Matching Principal' by only considering the income earned by Appellant, without allowing the corresponding expenditure incurred by the Appellant to earn such income, as also held in "JK Industries Vs Union of India"
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 270 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 14 September, 2019

8.7 Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 submitted that the Central Commission vide its Order dated 21.04.2016 has rightly rejected the claim of the Appellant and restricted the initial spares to the normative ceiling of the individual elements of the Project. The appellant cannot get what is not provided for in the Tariff Regulations and as such the capping has to be as per the relevant Regulations of the Commission. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the project consists of 18 elements of different types and ratings such as 400 kV transmission lines, substation elements like ICTs, Reactors, 220 kV bays etc. which are executed through different contracts and commissioned on different dates. Accordingly, the spares were supposed to be procured under different contracts applicable to each element which shall be the basis for computing the initial spares. 8.8 Learned counsel contended that the claim of the Appellant to allow admissible percentage for initial spares of the total project cost is against the Regulations and will definitely impact the transmission cost to be paid by the consumers. The issue raised is whether the initial spares ought to be computed on the basis of total project cost Page 34 of 40 Appeal No.74 of 2017 or on the basis of cost of the individual elements. He further submitted that as per the Tariff Regulations, 2009, the tariff can be claimed and allowed for individual elements of a transmission system and the Regulation 4 of the Tariff Regulations, 2009 provides that the capital cost of the project may be broken into the stages or units or units of transmission lines or sub-station for the purpose of tariff determination. The Central Commission determined the tariff of the transmission lines separately as per Regulation 4 and the Appellant cannot plea to the Central Commission for going beyond its own regulations as held by the apex court in PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 4 SCC 603 at page 638, cited supra.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fatehgarh Bhadla Transmission Company ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 2 May, 2023

91. As held hereinabove, the contention that the 2019 and 2020 Regulations fall foul of the Electricity Act does not merit acceptance. Even otherwise, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to examine the vires of these Regulations, as that would amount to exercise of the power of Judicial review. The Electricity Act, 2003 does not confer the power of judicial APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2022 Page 86 of 176 review, of the validity of the regulations made by the CERC under Section 178 of the Act, on the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. Such Regulations are made under the authority of delegated legislation, they are in the nature of subordinate legislation, and have general application. Consequently its validity can be tested only in judicial review proceedings before Courts, and not by way of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity under Section 111 of the said Act, more so as the word "order" in Section 111 of the 2003 Act does not include Regulations made under Section 178 of the Act. Section 121 of the 2003 Act, and the words "orders", "instructions" or "directions" used therein, do not also confer the power of judicial review on the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. No appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall lie on the validity of a Regulation made under Section 178. (PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 4 SCC 603). The power to interpret the 2019 and 2020 Regulations does not extend to examining its vires, and the power to strike down subordinate legislation on the ground that it runs contrary to the Parent Act, under which it was made, can be exercised only in judicial review proceedings.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 178 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Aryan Renewable Energy Private Pvt. Ltd vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 8 January, 2026

Contrary to the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 4 SCC 603, the judgement in Brahmani Thermal Pvt Ltd vs CERC gives primacy to the contractual provision over that of the Statutory Regulations. The said judgement does not amount to a declaration of law or authority of a general nature constituting a binding precedent. The opinion expressed in the said judgment is without reference to, much less on an analysis of, the relevant statutory provisions. A decision is binding not because of its conclusions, but in regard to its ratio and the principles laid down therein. Any declaration or conclusion, arrived at without being preceded by the consideration and analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, cannot be deemed to be the declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. A decision rendered without reference to the crucial words of the rule/regulation is not a binding precedent.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 3 July, 2024

156. As already noted, on the first issue, we agree with the submission of the Appellant for setting-aside the Review Order on the ground that the Impugned Order is contrary to settled principle of law in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in PTC India Limited V. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603, para 54 to 56, the Central Commission is bound by its own Regulations, the Review Order is set aside.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next