Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)
Dnh Power Distribution Company Ltd vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 13 October, 2020 cites

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs Rerc And Ors. on 13 November, 2007

31. Apparently, there was no restriction to quantify shortfall of coal with reference to any date, for example 31.03.2017 as a cut-off date. In 51 Judgment in Appeal No. 283 of 2019 that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, to cut short multiplicity of proceedings/litigations, the CERC was justified to consider shortfall of coal beyond 31.03.2017 as noted in the SHAKTI Policy. At the cost of repetition, we once again place on record that in Civil Appeals pertaining to Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam's case (Adani 202 judgment), Honble Apex Court upheld the opinion of this Tribunal that SHAKTI Scheme is continuation of NCDP 2007 and 2013, therefore, the challenge raised by the Appellant with regard to SHAKTI Scheme issue is no longer res integra.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs Adani Power Ltd. on 25 February, 2019

"58. However, Shri Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the appellants, argued that the policy dated 18th October, 2007 was announced even before the effective date of the PPAs, and made it clear to all generators that coal may not be given to the extent of the entire quantity allocated. We are afraid that we cannot accede to this argument for the reason that the change in law has only taken place only in 2013, which modifies the 2007 policy and to the extent that it does so, relief is available under the PPA itself to persons who source supply of coal from indigenous sources. It is to this limited extent that change in law is held in favour of the respondents. Certain other minor contentions that are raised on behalf of both sides are not being addressed by us for the reason that we find it unnecessary to go into the same. The Appellate Tribunal's judgment and the Commission's orders following the said judgment are set aside. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission will, as a result of this judgment, go into the matter afresh and determine what relief should be granted to those power generators who fall within clause 13 of the PPA as has been held by us in this judgment."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 20 - Cited by 29 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Gmr Kamalanga Energy Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 6 September, 2019

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.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next