Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)

State Of A.P vs National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors on 22 April, 2002

In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation [(2002) 5 SCC 203], it was held that generation and supply of electricity is instantaneous and has to be treated as one transaction. If stand of the Respondents is accepted, that only from the period when the supply of power commences, the very provisions pertaining to change in law become act of supply in respect of construction period so also the ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 37 [Judgment in Appeal No. 284 of 2017 & Appeal No. 9 of 2018 period prior to commencement of supply of power or prior to commissioning of the generating unit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 121 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

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

49. Coming to the issue of 'Carrying Cost', according to the Appellant, in terms of Judgment of this Tribunal dated 13.04.2018 passed in Appeal No. 210 of 2017 at Pg. 26 to 28 of the Judgment); judgment of this Tribunal dated 14.08.2018 passed in Appeal Nos. 119 & 277 of 2016 (Para xxix, xxx) and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25.02.2019 in Uttar Haryana Bijli VitranNigam & Anr. vs. Adani Power Ltd. & Ors. (2019 (5) SCC 325) (Para 10, 13 and 19), the Appellant-Adani Power is entitled for such carrying cost even for the past period. The relevant paragraphs in these judgments read as under:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 20 - Cited by 29 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 July, 2011

Para (x) of Appeal No. 210 of 2017 ( at page 69 of the Judgment) "x. Further, the provisions of Article 13.2 i.e. restoring the Appellant to the same economic position as if Change in Law has not occurred is in consonance with the principle of 'restitution' i.e. restoration of some specific thing to its rightful status. Hence, in view of the provisions of the PPA, the principle of restitution and judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India & Ors., we are of the considered opinion that the Appellant is eligible for Carrying Cost arising out of approval of the Change in Law events from the ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 30 of 37 [Judgment in Appeal No. 284 of 2017 & Appeal No. 9 of 2018 effective date of change in Law till the approval of the said event by appropriate authority. It is also observed that the Gujarat Bid-01 PPA have no provision for restoration to the same economic position as if Change in Law has not occurred. Accordingly, this decision of allowing Carrying Cost will not be applicable to the Gujarat Bid-01 PPA."
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 325 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Energy Watchdog vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 11 April, 2017

19. Lastly, the judgment of this Court in Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2017) 14 SCC 80 was also relied upon. In this judgment, three issues were set out and decided, one of which was concerned with a change in law provision of a PPA. In holding that change in Indonesian law would not qualify as a change in law under the guidelines read with the PPAs, this Court referred to Clause 13.2 as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 100 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 Next