Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.33 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 7 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 16 March, 2009
(f) The instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant Petitioner, against
the impugned order dated 9.5.2013 passed by the Central
Commission in the Review Petition No. 7 of 2012 filed in Petition No.
136/2010, before this Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of
interest during construction and incidental expense during
construction. The main dispute between the contesting parties is
that since out of four Assets of the Appellant Petitioner, IDC and
IEDC has been allowed as regards Assets 1 & 2 and IDC and IEDC
has been disallowed as regards Assets 3 & 4 respectively in the
impugned Review Order dated 9.5.2013, review order as regards
Asset 1 & 2 has merged with the main order dated 11.1.2012 in
Petition No. 136 of 2010. Since the claim or request of the Appellant
Petitioner for IDC and IEDC regarding Assets 3 and 4 has been
disallowed in the impugned Review Order dated 9.5.2013, the same
cannot be said to be merged with the main order dated 11.1.2012 in
Petition No. 136 of 2010, in view of the judgment dated 2.12.2012
passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 88 of 2013 in NTPC vs CERC
of this Tribunal and also in judgment dated 8.1.2014 in Appeal No. 9
of 2013 Jamshedpur Utilities and Services Company Ltd v/s
Jharkhand Electricity Regulatory Commission of this Tribunal.
Ntpc Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 27 January, 2014
(g) This Tribunal vide judgment dated 2.12.2013 in Appeal No. 88 of
2013 in the case of NTPC Limited v/s Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission, in para 31 held as follows:
Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & Ors vs Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr on 20 June, 1995
(p) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar
Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001 (2033) observed that when a review
petition is entertained and notice is issued by a court it is open to it
to restrict the scope of hearing but once the petition is heard and the
court is satisfied that the order under review was erroneous at the
face of it then it is not precluded from allowing the petition setting
aside the findings which were earlier not permitted to be reopened.
M/S. Dsr Steel (P) Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 1 May, 2012
(s) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in DSR Steel (Private) Limited v/s
State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2012) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 782 while dealing with the doctrine of merger has
recently observed as follows:
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Paul Manickam And Anr. on 13 October, 2003
(c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v Paul Manickam, AIR
2003 SC 4622 (4629) held that the court would not entertain a
review petition with an entirely new substratum of issues or where
there is suppression of facts.
Mohan Lal Bagla vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 11 August, 2004
(d) In Mohan Lal Bagla v. Board of Revenue, U.P., AIR 2005 AII 308, it
has been held that Re-hearing of the case is not permissible in the
disguise of review.
Late Smt. Krishna Devi, L/H. Of Shri ... vs A.C.I.T. [Alongwith Ita Nos. 79, 81, 83, ... on 28 January, 2004
(e) Further, in Bdya Devi v. I.T. Commr., Allahabad, AIR 2004 Cal 63
(67) (DB), it has further been held that in review, the court cannot
Page (22)
Judgment in Appeal No.167 of 2013
enter into a process of taking evidence to establish same thing which
is not on record in order to create records for the purpose.