Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.21 seconds)
M/S Tamil Nadu Generation And ... vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory ... on 4 January, 2022 cites

Ptc India Ltd vs Central Electricity Reg. Comm. ... on 15 March, 2010

24. The second respondent, however, argues that since there was no amendment to the PPA, which had been approved by the State Commission, the terms as to applicable tariff cannot be treated as having undergone a change, this being impermissible for the parties to do on their own. It is pointed out that by the directions in Order dated 29.07.2016, the levelized tariff of Rs. 4.91/kWh had been adopted which consequently became a condition of the approved PPA. Referring to the Statement of Objects and Appeal No. 321 of 2021 Page 15 of 20 Reasons for enactment of the Electricity Act and rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603 and India Thermal Power Ltd. v. State of M.P. (2000) 3 SCC 379, as indeed judgments of this tribunal in Appeal no. 82 of 2011 Essar Power Limited v. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & ors. (16.12.2011); Appeal no. 210 of 2014 Indian Wind Power Association v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. (26.02.2016); Appeal no. 112 of 2012 Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Penna electricity Ltd. (10.07.2013); and Appeal no. 51 of 2011 Rutwik Energy Generation Private Limited v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & ors. (21.10.2011), it is argued that the tariff determination is carried out by the Regulatory Commission under Sections 61 & 64, 79 & 86, consequential inclusion of the financial terms in the PPA giving it a statutory flavour, no modification of any term being permitted unless approved by the Regulatory Authority, reliance also being placed on Clause 15.3 (on subject of amendment) of the PPA. The sum and substance of the argument is that since there is no formal amendment of the PPA so as to reflect the discounted price, it having been offered unilaterally, its withdrawal cannot be questioned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 155 - Cited by 239 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Essar Power Limited vs Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ... on 16 December, 2011

24. The second respondent, however, argues that since there was no amendment to the PPA, which had been approved by the State Commission, the terms as to applicable tariff cannot be treated as having undergone a change, this being impermissible for the parties to do on their own. It is pointed out that by the directions in Order dated 29.07.2016, the levelized tariff of Rs. 4.91/kWh had been adopted which consequently became a condition of the approved PPA. Referring to the Statement of Objects and Appeal No. 321 of 2021 Page 15 of 20 Reasons for enactment of the Electricity Act and rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603 and India Thermal Power Ltd. v. State of M.P. (2000) 3 SCC 379, as indeed judgments of this tribunal in Appeal no. 82 of 2011 Essar Power Limited v. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & ors. (16.12.2011); Appeal no. 210 of 2014 Indian Wind Power Association v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. (26.02.2016); Appeal no. 112 of 2012 Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Penna electricity Ltd. (10.07.2013); and Appeal no. 51 of 2011 Rutwik Energy Generation Private Limited v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & ors. (21.10.2011), it is argued that the tariff determination is carried out by the Regulatory Commission under Sections 61 & 64, 79 & 86, consequential inclusion of the financial terms in the PPA giving it a statutory flavour, no modification of any term being permitted unless approved by the Regulatory Authority, reliance also being placed on Clause 15.3 (on subject of amendment) of the PPA. The sum and substance of the argument is that since there is no formal amendment of the PPA so as to reflect the discounted price, it having been offered unilaterally, its withdrawal cannot be questioned.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 53 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Indian Wind Power Association vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 9 November, 2021

24. The second respondent, however, argues that since there was no amendment to the PPA, which had been approved by the State Commission, the terms as to applicable tariff cannot be treated as having undergone a change, this being impermissible for the parties to do on their own. It is pointed out that by the directions in Order dated 29.07.2016, the levelized tariff of Rs. 4.91/kWh had been adopted which consequently became a condition of the approved PPA. Referring to the Statement of Objects and Appeal No. 321 of 2021 Page 15 of 20 Reasons for enactment of the Electricity Act and rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603 and India Thermal Power Ltd. v. State of M.P. (2000) 3 SCC 379, as indeed judgments of this tribunal in Appeal no. 82 of 2011 Essar Power Limited v. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & ors. (16.12.2011); Appeal no. 210 of 2014 Indian Wind Power Association v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. (26.02.2016); Appeal no. 112 of 2012 Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Penna electricity Ltd. (10.07.2013); and Appeal no. 51 of 2011 Rutwik Energy Generation Private Limited v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & ors. (21.10.2011), it is argued that the tariff determination is carried out by the Regulatory Commission under Sections 61 & 64, 79 & 86, consequential inclusion of the financial terms in the PPA giving it a statutory flavour, no modification of any term being permitted unless approved by the Regulatory Authority, reliance also being placed on Clause 15.3 (on subject of amendment) of the PPA. The sum and substance of the argument is that since there is no formal amendment of the PPA so as to reflect the discounted price, it having been offered unilaterally, its withdrawal cannot be questioned.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 40 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rithwik Energy Generation Private ... vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 21 October, 2011

24. The second respondent, however, argues that since there was no amendment to the PPA, which had been approved by the State Commission, the terms as to applicable tariff cannot be treated as having undergone a change, this being impermissible for the parties to do on their own. It is pointed out that by the directions in Order dated 29.07.2016, the levelized tariff of Rs. 4.91/kWh had been adopted which consequently became a condition of the approved PPA. Referring to the Statement of Objects and Appeal No. 321 of 2021 Page 15 of 20 Reasons for enactment of the Electricity Act and rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603 and India Thermal Power Ltd. v. State of M.P. (2000) 3 SCC 379, as indeed judgments of this tribunal in Appeal no. 82 of 2011 Essar Power Limited v. Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & ors. (16.12.2011); Appeal no. 210 of 2014 Indian Wind Power Association v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & anr. (26.02.2016); Appeal no. 112 of 2012 Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Penna electricity Ltd. (10.07.2013); and Appeal no. 51 of 2011 Rutwik Energy Generation Private Limited v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & ors. (21.10.2011), it is argued that the tariff determination is carried out by the Regulatory Commission under Sections 61 & 64, 79 & 86, consequential inclusion of the financial terms in the PPA giving it a statutory flavour, no modification of any term being permitted unless approved by the Regulatory Authority, reliance also being placed on Clause 15.3 (on subject of amendment) of the PPA. The sum and substance of the argument is that since there is no formal amendment of the PPA so as to reflect the discounted price, it having been offered unilaterally, its withdrawal cannot be questioned.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 20 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next