Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.73 seconds)
Documents citing Gmr Kamalanga Energy Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 6 September, 2019

Adani Power (Mundra) Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 7 June, 2021

53. As against this argument of the learned counsel Mr. Amit Kapur, learned counsel Mr. Ganesan Umapathy appearing for Discoms contends that the Judgment dated 14.08.2018 in Appeal No. 119 of 2016 in Adani Power Rajasthan vs. RERC, Appeal No. 111 of 2017 in GMR Warora vs. CERC and Appeal No. 193 of 2017 in GMR Kamalanga vs. CERC Page 34 of 64 Judgment in Appeal No. 158 of 2017 & Appeal No. 316 of 2017 are under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the issue of Busy Season and Developmental Surcharge on transportation of coal is not yet settled finally.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 20 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Dnh Power Distribution Company Ltd vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 13 October, 2020

12.5 In the instant case, we have found in the previous paragraphs that Adani Rajasthan's bid was premised on domestic coal on the basis of the 100% domestic coal supply assurance contained in NCDP 2007. Since SHAKTI Policy and the FSA executed thereunder still do not meet the assurance of 100% supply of domestic coal to Adani Rajasthan, it would follow that Adani Rajasthan would need to be compensated for any shortfall in supply of domestic linkage coal even post grant of coal linkage under the SHAKTI Policy. Rajasthan Discoms have not disputed that the introduction of SHAKTI Policy constitutes a Change in Law under the PPA. Their contention is that any shortfall of coal under the SHAKTI FSA by the coal companies is a contractual matter to be sorted out between Adani Rajasthan and the coal companies. We are not persuaded by this argument for the reason that we have already held in GMR Kamalanga case that the contractual conditions or limitations were not present in NCDP 2007 at the time of bid submission by Adani Rajasthan. This contention of Rajasthan Discoms is also against the principle laid down in Energy Watchdog judgment. The SHAKTI Policy continues the earlier coal supply restriction to 75% of ACQ. If actual supply of domestic linkage coal under the SHAKTI FSA is higher, it goes without saying that the generator's relief or compensation under the Change in Law provisions would be limited to the actual shortfall in supply of domestic linkage coal. We also note that there is no rational basis to assume that the supply under the SHAKTI FSAs would be higher or better than that under the pre- SHAKTI FSAs.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lanco Amarkantak Power Limited vs Haryana Electricity Regulatory ... on 13 January, 2022

iii. The judgment in Adani case has been reaffirmed by this Tribunal in its decision dated 21.12.2018 in Appeal No. 193 of 2017- GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd. v. CERC iv. The judgment in Adani case has been reaffirmed by this Tribunal in its decision dated 21.12.2018 in Appeal No. 193 of 2017- GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd. v. CERC v. Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India (2007) 3 SCC 545, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Adani Power Maharashtra Limited (Apml) vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 14 September, 2020

9.12 From the above decision, it is clear that the methodology for compensation in case of shortfall in domestic coal under the NCDP regime cannot be different from the methodology for compensation in case of shortfall under the SHAKTI Policy. This Tribunal has already held that the shortfall in domestic coal supply needs to be measured against 100% supply assurance contained under the NCDP 2007 and when measured against this assurance, restricting Change in law relief to the maximum of 35% to 25% for the respective four years of the 12th plan is not justified. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the Appellant and the Impugned Order is set aside to the extent it limits the Change in Law relief to the Appellant with reference to the maximum of (1) actual quantum of coal offered for offtake by CIL, and (2) the minimum assured quantum as per the NCDP 2013 for the respective year. We direct that the Page 65 of 67 Judgment of Appeal No. 182 of 2019 Respondent MSEDCL shall compute Change in Law compensation on the basis of actual shortfall in supply of domestic coal suffered by the Appellant from the start date approved by the MERC.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Gvk Power (Goindwal Sahib) Limited vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 26 February, 2020

(a) Regulation 12 of the CERC Tariff Regulations 2014 in terms of which uncontrollable factors leading to cost escalation impacting IDC, IEDC and cost escalation include force majeure Events and change in law events. It is pertinent to note that cancellation of the captive coal block has been held to be a change in law event by this Tribunal by way of its judgment dated 21.12.2017 in Appeal Page 4 of 98 IA NO. 136 OF 2020 IN APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2020 No. 193 of 2017 titled GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited v CERC.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Adani Power Maharashtra Limited (Apml) vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 28 September, 2020

"12.5 In the instant case, we have found in the previousparagraphs that Adani Rajasthan's bid was premised on domestic coal on the basis of the 100% domestic coal supply assurance contained in NCDP 2007. Since SHAKTI Policy and the FSA executed thereunder still do not meet the assurance of 100% supply of domestic coal to Adani Rajasthan, it would follow that Adani Rajasthan would need to be compensated for any shortfall in supply of domestic linkage coal even post grant of coal linkage under the SHAKTI Policy. Rajasthan Discoms have not disputed that the introduction of SHAKTI Policy constitutes a Change in Law under the PPA. Their contention is that any shortfall of coal under the SHAKTI FSA by the coal companies is a contractual matter to be sorted out between Adani Rajasthan and the coal companies. We are not persuaded by this argument for the reason that we have already held in GMR Kamalanga case that the contractual conditions or limitations were not present in NCDP 2007 at the time of bid submission by Adani Rajasthan. This contention of Rajasthan Discoms is also against the principle laid down in Energy Watchdog judgment. The SHAKTI Policy continues the earlier coal supply restriction to 75% of ACQ. If actual supply of domestic linkage coal under the SHAKTI FSA is higher, it goes without saying that the generator's relief or compensation under the Change in Law provisions would be limited to the actual shortfall in supply of domestic linkage coal. We also note that there is no rational basis to assume that the supply under the SHAKTI FSAs would be higher or better than that under the pre SHAKTI FSAs.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd & Ors vs Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory ... on 14 September, 2019

Judgment of A.No.202 of 2018 & 305 of 2018 (Appeal No. 193 of 2017), we had occasion to consider, in the context of pre-SHAKTI FSA, as to whether relief for domestic coal shortfall needs to be limited to the ACQ levels specified in the FSA and we came to the conclusion that the impact or effect of change in law has to be considered against the originally assured quantum of coal. We also observed that "if the bid was based on the SLC allocation and LOA prior to the cut off date indicated in the PPA dated 09.11.2011, any new condition including supply of imported coal or penalty provisions cannot be taken into consideration." 12.5 In the instant case, we have found in the previous paragraphs that Adani Rajasthan's bid was premised on domestic coal on the basis of the 100% domestic coal supply assurance contained in NCDP 2007. Since SHAKTI Policy and the FSA executed thereunder still do not meet the assurance of 100% supply of domestic coal to Adani Rajasthan, it would follow that Adani Rajasthan would need to be compensated for any shortfall in supply of domestic linkage coal even post grant of coal linkage under the SHAKTI Policy. Rajasthan Discoms have not disputed that the introduction of SHAKTI Policy constitutes a Change in Law under the PPA. Their contention is that any shortfall of coal under the SHAKTI FSA by the coal companies is a contractual matter to be sorted out between Adani Rajasthan and Page 85 of 95 Judgment of A.No.202 of 2018 & 305 of 2018 the coal companies. We are not persuaded by this argument for the reason that we have already held in GMR Kamalanga case that the contractual conditions or limitations were not present in NCDP 2007 at the time of bid submission by Adani Rajasthan. This contention of Rajasthan Discoms is also against the principle laid down in Energy Watchdog judgment. The SHAKTI Policy continues the earlier coal supply restriction to 75% of ACQ.If actual supply of domestic linkage coal under the SHAKTI FSA is higher, it goes without saying that the generator's relief or compensation under the Change in Law provisions would be limited to the actual shortfall in supply of domestic linkage coal. We also note that there is no rational basis to assume that the supply under the SHAKTI FSAs would be higher or better than that under the pre-SHAKTI FSAs.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next