Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Section 83 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 85 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others vs Sm. Deorajin Debi And Another on 20 April, 1960
21. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
it is necessary to dispose of technical points raised by the respondents.
The first point that the order dated 16.07.2009 whereby the tariff for the
base year during the control period 2009-14was passed has attained
finality and is beyond challenge, even if there be any clerical mistake
therein is not impressive and is unsustainable because a wind power
project developer commissioning a project within the control period
subsequent to the FY 2009-10 will not be in a position to know the
deficiencies and mistakes occurring in the tariff determination order dated
Appeal No.186 of 2010 33
16.07.2009 and the door cannot be shut upon him when he raises any
mistakes or deficiencies in the base tariff order. It has rightly been
submitted by Mr. Ramachandran that the arguments of the respondents
would lead to an absurd situation when a developer sets up his generating
station in the year 2012-12 or 2013-14. As to non-challenge to the order
dated 06.07.2010 whereby the two petitions no. 220 and 221 of 2010 were
admitted for hearing only on one point while discarding the other points, the
law is very clear in this respect. The order dated 06.07.2010, it has to be
remembered, is not the final order disposing of the aforesaid two petitions.
It is infact an admission order for hearing on a issue to the exclusion of the
others. The decision inSatyadhan Ghosal and Ors. V. Sm. Deorajin Debi &
Anr. (ibid) is very eloquent in this respect.
S. Satnam Singh & Ors vs Surnder Kaur & Anr on 2 December, 2008
(n) On the question of consideration of the quantum of
repayment of loan and depreciation, the Commission has not
corrected the mistake in the base tariff while computing the
tariff applicable for the projects to be de-commissioned during
the FY 2010-11. Regulation 22 (3) mandates that the
repayment for each year shall be deemed to be equal to the
depreciation allowed for that year. The Commission also
made arithmetical mistake in the calculation of repayment of
loan and depreciation rate. The depreciation was considered
by the Commission at Rs. 27.72 lacs per annum, while
calculating the repayment of loan, the amount has been taken
at Rs. 36.75 lacs per annum. This error does not only affect
the projects commissioned in the year 2009-10 which the
order dated 16.07.2009 relates to but also affect the base
considered by the Commission in the order dated 31.03.2010.
No party ought to suffer on account of any act or error on the
part of the Court and reliance has been placed on the
decision in Tilak Raj V. Baikunthi Devi, AIR 2009 SC 2136
and S. Satnam Singh And Ors. V. Surender Kaur Anr.,
reported in 2009 (15) SCALE 626 .
Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 83 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 111 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Kailash Chandra And Anr vs Mukundi Lal And Ors on 25 January, 2002
(i) It is argued that no provision of the statute can be read in
isolation to the other provisions of the same statute and the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Chandra &
Anr. V. Mukund Lal & Anr (2002) 2 SCC 678 and D.
Sanjeevayya V. Election Tribunal, (1967) 2 SCR 489 have
been cited in this regard.