Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (6.52 seconds)
Documents citing Meghalaya State Electricity Board vs Meghalaya State Electricity ... on 10 August, 2010

Bhakra- Beas Management Board (Bbmb) vs Punjab State Electricity Regulatory ... on 6 September, 2017

v. This Tribunal vide judgement dated 10.8.2010 in Appeal No. 37 of 2010 in case of Meghalaya State Electricity Board Vs. Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission 2010 ELR (APTEL) 0940 has dealt in detail the scope of remand order and has concluded that when a matter is remanded by the Appellate forum to the lower court/lower authority with limited direction the lower court/lower authority shall restrict itself to the extent prescribed in the order of "Limited Remand".
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

In Meghalaya State Electricity Board v. Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Order in Appeal No. 37 of 2010 Dated 10th August, 2010), this Tribunal, after referring to the judgements in (1) Mohan Lal vs. Anandibat (1971) 1 SCC 813; (2) Paper Products Ltd. vs.CCE (2007) 7 SCC 352; (3) Smt. Bidya Devi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad AIR 2004 Calcutta 63; (4) K.P. Dwivedi vs. Tate of U.P. (2003) 12 SCC 572; (5) Mr. Muneswar and Ors. vs. Smt. Jagat Mohini Des AIR (1952) Calcutta 368; (6) Amrik Singh vs. Union of India (2001) 10 SCC 424; and (7) Union of India & Anr. Vs. Major Bhadur Singh (2006) 1 SCC 3670, held that the principles laid down in those authorities were as under :- (i) The Court below to which the matter is remanded by the Superior Court is bound to act within the scope of remand. It is not open to ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Judgement in Appeal No. 383 of 2022 Page 18 of 97 the Court below to do anything but to carry out the terms of the remand in letter and spirit; (ii) Ordinarily, the Superior Court can set aside the entire judgment of the Court below and remand it to the subordinate court to consider all the issues afresh. This is called 'open Remand'. The subordinate court can decide on its own afresh on the available materials; and (iii) The Superior Court can remand the matter on specific issues with a specific direction through a "Remand Order". This is called 'Limited Remand Order'. In case of Limited Remand Order, the jurisdiction of the Court below is confined only to the extent to which it was remanded".
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 109 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

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

(Damodar Valley Corporation v. CERC (Judgement in Appeal No. 146 of 2009 dated 10.05.2010; Damodar Valley Judgment in Appeal No.98 of 2021 & 465 of 2023 Page 71 of 359 Corporation vs Jharkhand SERC: Judgement in Appeal No. 332 of 2024 dated 15.10.2024); Meghalaya State Electricity Board v. Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Order in Appeal No. 37 of 2010 Dated 10th August, 2010); Mohan Lal vs. Anandibat (1971) 1 SCC 813; Paper Products Ltd. vs.CCE (2007) 7 SCC 352; Smt. Bidya Devi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad: AIR 2004 Calcutta 63; K.P. Dwivedi vs. Tate of U.P. (2003) 12 SCC 572; Mr. Muneswar and Ors. vs. Smt. Jagat Mohini Des AIR (1952) Calcutta 368; Amrik Singh vs. Union of India (2001) 10 SCC 424; and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Major Bhadur Singh (2006) 1 SCC 3670) As noted under the earlier head, while absence of reasons in a tariff order may, in certain circumstances, necessitate the said order being set aside on that score, we find it difficult to agree with the submission, urged on behalf of the Appellant-NPCL, that this Tribunal should, after setting aside the impugned order for non-compliance with this rule of natural justice, merely direct that the past practice be continued. Absence of reasons, even if this rule of natural justice is held applicable to a tariff order, would result in non-compliance of the said rule which would only necessitate the impugned order being set aside on this score, and the Commission being directed to now comply with this particular rule of natural justice by assigning reasons for passing the tariff order. Alternatively, this Tribunal, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, could examine the Appellant's claim on the basis of the material available on record, as an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 270 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mawana Sugars Ltd vs Punjab State Electricity Regulatory ... on 12 July, 2012

The decision of the Tribunal in Meghalaya State Electricity Board Vs. Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission does not lay down any legal proposition. The matter of the fact is that the Act does not have any provision that a tariff order which is definitely meant to be operational in a financial year cannot take effect from the commencement of the financial year in case it becomes impossible for the Commission to pronounce such order before 1st April of a financial year. If for some reason or the other the Commission passes a tariff order, some time after the commencement of the financial year, it cannot be argued that the 148 order would become effective without any alternative from the date of making of the order because of the fact that neither the Act nor any provision of the Punjab Tariff Regulation does mandately provide that a tariff order shall always be effective only on from the date when it is pronounced. Moreover, even if there be any such provision still then the question against mandatory nature of the provision may be argued on the proposition as to whether any consequence has been provided for in the provision itself in case of breach of any such provision. Therefore, the argument fails.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 39 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Shri Rama Shankar Awasthi & Anr vs Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 6 August, 2021

222. The PPA Approval Order had been passed by the State Commission in terms of the Remand Order of this Tribunal, which are strictly complied with. This Tribunal had only directed the State Commission to consider the submissions made by Respondent No.2/NPCL and Respondent No.3/DIL on merits, which in fact was complied with by the State Commission during the PPA Approval proceedings pursuant to the Remand Order. There was thus no direction to give hearing to the public at large under the Remand Order. Judgments in the following cases are relevant: Meghalaya State Electricity Board vs. Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr., 2010 ELR (APTEL) 940 (Para 20).
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1