Another ground for interfering with the tariff order is
increase in cross subsidy levels and tariff shock caused to
the appellant as described in paragraph ... tariff is not correct.
(ii) According to the Appellant, there is an increase in
cross subsidy level and consequently there is a
tariff shock
tariff of the Appellant was increased from
Rs.3.75 to Rs.5.90 i.e. 58% increase. This resulted in
the tariff shock ... tariff of the Appellant
has been increased from Rs.3.75 to R.5.90 i.e. 58%
increase. This has led to tariff shock
Appellants Association of Hospital Mumbai said to
be resulting in tariff shock and high cross subsidy.
(B) The other Appeals ... would relate to the orders of the State Commission
regarding the tariff shock and high cross subsidy on the basis of the
directions given
average tariff as a percentage
of cost of supply approved in the tariff order for FY 2012-13 and the
average tariff as a percentage ... required under the Tariff Policy and the feasible pace at which
it can be done without giving a tariff shock to subsidized consumers.
The Commission
both in terms of quality and quantity as well as of reasonable tariff so as to facilitate a rapid growth of the Nation ... fact whether it is justified or not. This resulted in perceived shock and dismay and spontaneously generated persistent and percurrent protests, rallies, agitations ending
E.I.D.Parry (I) Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 6
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 2009
Author: S.B
Psa Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs The Board Of Trustees Of V.O. ... on 28
Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. ... vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 6
Cellular Operators Association Of ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 December, 2002
Equivalent
