Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Ntpc Ltd vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 21 August, 2009

Ntpc Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 11 April, 2014

1. This is an Appeal preferred under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 25.5.2012 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the 'Central Commission') in Petition No. 279/2009 titled as NTPC Ltd., New Delhi vs Uttar Pradesh Power corporation Ltd, Lucknow & Ors., Whereby the learned Central Commission has determined the tariff applicable for generation and supply of the electricity for the Appellant's Page (2) Judgment in Appeal No.188 of 2013 Feroze Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Station, Stage-III (210 MW) for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Babu Ram Jain vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. on 4 August, 2011

10. The Petitioner has superannuated during the pendency of the present W.P. (C) No. 1597/1998 Page 4 of 5 petition and, therefore, the question of his reinstatement does not arise. The liability for payment of the consequential benefits to the Petitioner is, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in North Delhi Power Limited v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited AIR 2010 SC 2302 that of the BYPL.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Rosy Jain vs Gnct Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 July, 2013

"6. I may for the sake of completion of narration state that the Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., AIR 2010 SCC 2302 has held that whatever is the liability of the Delhi Vidyut Board for the service benefits including pensionary benefits, payable to an employee, liability for clearing such dues will be of the DISCOM or the transferee company. In the present case respondent No.3/BYPL is the DISCOM in question who will have to pay the dues.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Tulsi Ram Arya vs Chairman D.V.B. & Ors. on 31 January, 2013

6. I may for the sake of completion of narration state that the Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., AIR 2010 SCC 2302 has held that whatever is the liability of the Delhi Vidyut Board for the service benefits including WP(C) No.618/2001 Page 6 of 8 pensionary benefits, payable to an employee, liability for clearing such dues will be of the DISCOM or the transferee company. In the present case respondent No.3/BYPL is the DISCOM in question who will have to pay the dues.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd vs Babu Ram Jain & Ors on 1 March, 2013

5. It is the appellant's own case that it had come to know of the order dated 4 th August, 2011, on 23rd August, 2011 when it received a copy of the representation dated 20th August, 2011 submitted to it by respondent No.1. This is also the case of the appellant that the aforesaid order dated 4th August, 2011 was examined by its counsel who advised not to prefer any appeal against the said order. As noted earlier by us, vide order dated 4th August, 2011, the learned Single Judge expressly held that in view of the decision in North Delhi Power Ltd.(supra), the appellant was liable to payment all consequential benefits to the petitioner/respondent No.1. Accordingly, it directed the appellant to pay all consequential benefits by way of arrears of salary and other retiral benefits to respondent No.1, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The order dated 4 th August, 2011 being absolutely clear and unambiguous, the appellant ought to have, if it disputed the LPA 113/2013 page 8 of 10 correctness of the aforesaid order, impugned the said order by way of an appeal, instead of sending the file to the Trust for making payment of leave encashment and pension to respondent No.1. Be that as it may, admittedly, the Trust, vide noting dated 29th September, 2011took a clear stand that it was not liable to pay the leave encashment, gratuity and pension to respondent No.1 and sent the file back to the appellant. In view of the stand taken by the Trust, the appellant ought not to have waited further and should immediately thereafter have come to this Court by way of an appeal. There was no justification in the appellant to continue exchange of notings with the Trust, when not only the order passed by the learned Single Judge directed payment of all terminal benefits by the appellant, the Trust had also taken an unequivocal stand that it was not liable to pay the said benefits to respondent No.1. Therefore, in our view, there is no satisfactory explanation for the appellant not filing this appeal soon after 29 th September, 2011. In fact, even on issue of contempt notice, vide order dated 26 th September, 2012, the appellant did not bother to either file a Review Petition or an appeal to this Court. The Review Petition was filed on 21st January, 2013 whereas the appeal was filed on 25th February, 2013. In these circumstances, there is no escape from the LPA 113/2013 page 9 of 10 conclusion that the appellant has filed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing this appeal.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - V K Jain - Full Document
1