Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.43 seconds)The Electricity Act, 2003
Section 61 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Raigarh Ispat Udyog Sangh vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity ... on 8 March, 2014
8.8 This Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 89 of 2012 (Raigarh Ispat
Udyog Sangh Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission),
took the view that in the absence of the segregated accounts of the
distribution business, the State Commission could not undertake
prudence check in determining the ARR and retail tariff of the Jindal
Steel. The prudence check is an essential part of the process of tariff
determination and any expenditure incurred by the Utility cannot be
accepted by a Regulator on the face of it and passed on to the consumers
and, hence, the Regulatory Commission is required to take into
consideration the efficient working of a utility as also the interest of the
consumers while determining the tariff and the State Commission, in
doing so, being a Regulator plays a role of internal auditor and it is not
bound by the expenditure reflected in the accounts of the said
Distribution Company.
Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 24 March, 2006
(j) that the CSERC (License) Regulations, 2004 cannot override
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a well settled
principle that a subordinate legislation must not only be in
conformity with the provisions of the Parent Act but the same
must also be in conformity with any other Act, as held in
Kerala Samasthana Chetu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala
(2006) 4 SCC 327; Damodar Valley Corporation v. Central
Electricity Regulatory Commission and others, vide order,
dated 23.11.2007 in Appeal No. 271, 273 and 275 of 2006;
and Mathew Antony v. Oriental Bank of Commerce AIR 2013
Ker 124.
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Section 62 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Damodar Valley Corporation vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 23 November, 2007
(j) that the CSERC (License) Regulations, 2004 cannot override
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a well settled
principle that a subordinate legislation must not only be in
conformity with the provisions of the Parent Act but the same
must also be in conformity with any other Act, as held in
Kerala Samasthana Chetu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala
(2006) 4 SCC 327; Damodar Valley Corporation v. Central
Electricity Regulatory Commission and others, vide order,
dated 23.11.2007 in Appeal No. 271, 273 and 275 of 2006;
and Mathew Antony v. Oriental Bank of Commerce AIR 2013
Ker 124.
Jindal Steel And Power Limited vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity ... on 1 July, 2014
(b) that against the same impugned orders, dated 10.7.2013 and
12.07.2013, which are the subject matter in the instant
Appeals, the same legal point has been challenged with
regard to the transmission business of JSPL. Hence, the law
laid down by this Appellate Tribunal in its judgment, dated
1.7.2014, is fully applicable to the aspect of transmission
business of the same Appellant. It means that the law laid
down regarding segregation of accounts filed by the same
Appellant regarding distribution business of the Appellant
shall apply to the segregation of accounts filed by the
Appellant with regard to the transmission business of the
same Appellant.