Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)Andhra Pradesh Power Co-Ordination ... vs M/S. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. And ... on 10 May, 2016
Section 62 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Electricity Act, 2003
Star Metallics And Power Private ... vs State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2017
28. It is not in dispute that when this Tribunal disposed of appeal dated
31.10.2017 filed by the Appellant on similar lines of the judgment of High
Court of Karnataka in writ petition filed by M/s Star Metallics's case, there
was no stay of the order of the learned single Judge dated 18.09.2017. As
noticed from records, the Writ Appeal seems to have been filed during 2018
and the Tribunal had disposed of the appeal on 31.10.2017. Admittedly,
Respondent Discoms did not challenge the said judgment of the Tribunal in
Appeal No.335 of 2016. According to Respondents, the matter in the Writ
Appeal is still pending, therefore it has not yet reached finality. This may not
be correct so far as the lis between the Appellant and the Respondents are
concerned. The Respondent-Discoms having failed to challenge the order of
the Tribunal dated 31.10.2017, the judgment in the appeal so far as the
Appellant and Respondents are concerned, has reached finality. In that view
of the matter, in the absence of challenge by the Respondent-Discoms
against the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 335 of 2016, we are of the
opinion that the lis between the parties pertaining to impugned order dated
18.08.2016 has become final.
State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Essar Oil Ltd. & Anr on 17 January, 2012
32. According to them, in the normal circumstance, if there was backing
down of energy by the distribution licensees, the generator has to reduce the
generation of power accordingly in the absence of Section 11 Order. But the
Respondent-Commission after analysing the meaning of unjust enrichment
by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "The state of
Gujarat & Ors., vs. Essar Oil Limited" (2013 (3) SCC 522) opined that the
claim of liquidated damages by the Appellant, if any earned by the Appellant-
Generator, cannot be treated as unjust enrichment. They further said since
the said enrichment was not at the instance of the Respondent ESCOMs,
therefore, ESCOMs were not entitled to any benefit of liquidated damages.
1