Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Sorted by: old Court: appellate tribunal for electricity aptel Year: 2011 Page 1 of about 42 results (0.047 seconds)

Jan 05 2011 (TRI)

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Tneb), Chennai Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corpo ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Jan-05-2011

..... 14.9.2006. the grounds which were not raised before the central commission relating to the waiver and unjust enrichment and section 65 of the contract act, 1872 cannot be allowed to be raised before this tribunal in these appeals, that too, in the application to condone the inordinate delay. hence, the ..... contrary to the regulations, even then nlc is liable to restore the benefit which has accrued to it under the said void contract as provided under section 65 of the indian contract act. (f) prior to the commencement of regulation 2001, the respondent and the appellant had entered into various agreements, namely, ..... the presentation would entitle the appellant maximum rebate, namely, 2.5%. this agreement also had a clause that even after the expiry of the contract, the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement would continue till such time it was formally renewed or replaced. thus, the said arrangement was ..... department and the accounts department did not have knowledge of the 3 documents till march, 2009, it implies that both these departments could not have acted on the basis of any inference based on the contents of these 3 documents. 58. that apart, no affidavit has been filed from the ..... under: proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the extraordinary discretion vested in courts by section 5 of the limitation act. what counts is not the length of time but the sufficiency of the cause. shortness of delay is another circumstances to be taken into .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 2011 (TRI)

M/S Indo Rama Synthetics (i) Ltd, Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulato ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : May-16-2011

..... consideration unless and until the parties are able to prove that the case falls under section 70 of the contract act, 1872. since the present case does not fall thereunder, the absence of written or formal contract is irrelevant. 3.7. under section 72 of the contract act, 1872, the appellant is entitled to receive the price of the inadvertent power provided to the grid from the ..... not authorize injection of power on behalf of the distribution licensees. 10. the appellant has referred to sections 70 and 72 of the indian contracts act, 1872 which are reproduced below: 70. obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such another ..... delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it. 11. in our opinion the section 70 and 72 of the indian contracts act, 1872 will not be applicable in the present case. the present case is governed by the electricity act, 2003 which is a complete code in itself. in the electricity grid, the sldc, in accordance with section 32 of the ..... of the appellant to the compensation for the alleged inadvertent injection of power into the grid without any schedule/contract. 6.1. we shall first examine the relevant sections of the act and the regulations. section 32(1) and (2) of the electricity act, 2003 relating to function of the state load dispatch centre (sldc) is reproduced below: 32. functions of state .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2011 (TRI)

Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd, Haryana Vs. Central Electricity Re ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Jan-20-2011

..... for the following contingencies shall be excluded from the total time of the element under period of consideration. i) outage of elements due to acts of god and force majeure events beyond the control of the transmission licensee. however, onus of satisfying the member secretary, reb that element outage ..... for the following contingencies shall be excluded from the total time of the element under period of consideration. i) outage of elements due to acts of god and force majeure events beyond the control of the transmission licensee. however, onus of satisfying the member secretary, reb that element outage ..... agencies for maintenance of construction and their transmission system shall only be deemed to be available. further, the outage of elements due to acts of god and force majeure events beyond the control of a transmission licensee limited to a reasonable restoration time as allowed by the member ..... (tneb) who is contesting the appeal by filing a counter statement. 37. according to the tneb, an event/act which the parties are aware of at the commencement of the contract cannot be termed as force majeure. secondly, the appellant cannot, strictly in terms of section 111 of the electricity ..... act, 2003, beseech the tribunal for relaxation of the ceiling norms towards the capitalization of the mandatory spares of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2011 (TRI)

Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking, Mumbai Vs. ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Feb-14-2011

..... of the above provision would clearly reveal that the state commission has unhindered powers to issue necessary directions as against the licensee to ensure compliance of the provisions of the act, regulations and the conditions of the license. 26. that apart, another section 142, which is pointed out confers power upon the state commission to issue penal directions for ..... any contravention of the provisions of the act. section 142 is reproduced as under: section 142: punishment for non-compliance of directions by appropriate commission. in case any complaint is filed before the appropriate commission by any ..... the state commission was approached by the respondents nos.3 to 8 consumers complaining against tata power company limited, respondent no.2 alleging contravention of section 43 of the act as well as contravention of its license conditions by tata power company limited under which tata power company limited is obliged to supply electricity to consumers in its license area ..... share its wide network with the tata power company limited. at the same time, the state commission ruled that tata power company limited, respondent no.2 was obliged under the act, 2003 to develop and maintain efficient, coordinated and economical distribution system in its area of supply. accordingly, a specific direction has been issued by the state commission to tata .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Jayaswal Neco, Industries Ltd, Raipur Vs. Chhattisgarh Electricit ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Feb-18-2011

..... power in open market. 10. the points for consideration are as follows: (i) whether the commission passed the impugned order in contravention of the principles established under the electricity act, 2003, national electricity policy as well as the orders passed by this tribunal from time to time? (ii) whether the commission erred in ignoring the fact that the total ..... the status of captive generating plants, which will entitle them to affect supply to third parties without obtaining a distribution license or without availing open access as mandated under the act, 2003. thus, these would gradually cripple the operation of the respondent no. 2, still burdened with the statutory universal supply obligation, by leaving mostly the subsidized category of ..... before this tribunal are accepted, then by resorting to mechanism such as the lease mechanism: in the present case or in the case of m/s monnet ispat, and acting under the camouflage of an impermissible mechanism of combining self consumption from their own generating plants with the consumption as captive user of another generating plant, generating plants would attain ..... jnil, but it cannot be combined with the consumption of electricity generated by another plant. 3. on 23rd september, 2009 the commission issued notices under section 142 of the act against the appellant and two other generating companies in connection with the aforesaid petition no. 17 of 2008 (m) alleging that self consumption of electricity by the appellant and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 2011 (TRI)

Chhattisgarh State Power, Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. J.P. Saboo, Urla I ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Feb-21-2011

..... to waive the minimum energy charge to be paid by captive consumers of the captive power plant is perfectly justified. ii. the next issue is the zero contract demand. section 63(3) of the electricity act, 2003 recognizes the power of the state commission while determining the tariff to differentiate consumers on the basis of the various categories, such as, load factor ..... taking electricity from grid only in exceptional circumstances, that too, when the captive power plant is under an outage. the captive consumers have been already paying demand charges for the contract demand as is applicable to all the other consumers. that apart, the transmission and the wheeling charges are being paid by the captive consumer to compensate the fixed cost incurred ..... state commission in detail as mentioned above. 27. it is contended by the appellant that it has to keep special infrastructure ready to supply to any captive consumers having zero contract demand as and when such captive consumer asked for supply and in that process, the appellant has incurred substantial expenditure. this contention has no basis as the appellant has not ..... energy would adversely affect its revenues as determined by the commission. as pointed out by the respondents, not only does the licensee recover the full demand charges on the demand contracted, the transmission and wheeling charges paid by the consumers of the cpp availing open access also go to partly reimburse the fixed costs of the licensee. in any case, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2011 (TRI)

M/S Pune Power Development Private Ltd. Pune Vs. Karnataka Electricity ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Feb-23-2011

..... to m/s bses rajdhani power ltd., and returning the same by m/s bses rajdhani power ltd. to the petitioners. this is not a gratuitous act undertaken by the respondent. the respondent under the contract entered with the petitioners as well as m/s bses rajdhani power ltd., has a right to receive the trading margin of rs.0.03/kwh ..... petition filed by the power corporation (r-2) before the state commission under section 86(1)(f) of the act is maintainable in law? (ii) whether the state commission has got a jurisdiction to grant the relief of specific performance for the contract which is said to be not concluded? (iii) whether the appellants are the generating company within the meaning of ..... section 2(28) of the act in respect of the project in question which alone would confer the jurisdiction on the state commission to ..... commission. 22. this aspect is further clear from the relevant provisions of the electricity act, 2003. as held by the constitution bench of honble supreme court, the act is conceived to be a complete code in itself and the act overrides even an arbitration provision contained in the contracts. therefore, all disputes which arose in relation to the transaction between the licensees are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2011 (TRI)

Chattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Daganiya, Raipur Vs. Ara ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Feb-24-2011

..... consumer. therefore, the state commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the said dispute. (ii) the additional demand charges for exceeding the contract demand billed by the state electricity board strictly in accordance with the tariff order of the state commission, the same had to be implemented without exception ..... .6.2009 and 7.9.2009, the appellant has filed the appeal only on the issue of waiver of additional demand charges for exceeding the contract demand. on this issue, the learned counsel for the appellant would make the following submissions to question the finding rendered by the state commission with ..... month of june, 2008, the electricity board issued bill dated 21.6.2009 demanding the additional charges for the excess demand over and above the contracted demand of 3.125 mva at 1 times the normal tariff as per tariff order. 7. challenging the same, arasmeta captive power co. ltd., ..... 9.7.2008, the 1st respondent, arasmeta captive power co. ltd., requested the erstwhile electricity board, the predecessor of the appellant, to reduce its contract demand to zero with effect from 16.8.2008. this was not accepted by the electricity board and the same was communicated to the appellant by ..... state commission under section 86(1)(f) and 86(1)(k) of the electricity act, 2003 with two prayers, i.e., (i) for the direction to the licensee, i.e. electricity board, to permit reduction of existing contract demand to zero and to bill for the power drawn, if any, at the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2011 (TRI)

Polyplex Corporation Ltd, Uttrakhand Vs. Uttrakhand Electricity Regula ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Feb-25-2011

..... year 2007-08 and 2008-09 approved load factor based tariff for ht industry, it assessed cross subsidy rightly at different load factors for consumers with contracted load above 1000 kva and load factor above 50%. necessarily, the extent of cross subsidy varies significantly at different load factors. the commission took into ..... by 2010-11 as stipulated in the tariff policy . in fact, there would be no cause of grievance if in terms of the provisions of the act and the tariff policy tariff is determined on cost plus basis subject to gradual reduction in cross subsidy. the commission suggested reduction of continuous supply surcharge ..... tribunal in a judgment dated 23.5.2007 in the matter of m/s. poddar alloys (p) ltd. vs uerc. section 62 (3) of the act empowers the commission to differentiate tariff according to the consumers load factor, power factor, voltage and total consumption of electricity etc. regulation 20 provides that ..... appellants category in such a way that the net tariff hike does not exceed 15%. now, in order to carry out the mandate of electricity act, 2003 and the tariff policy for gradual reduction of subsidies, if the tariff for different categories were to be increased by the same quantum of ..... rather directed the commission to re-determine the tariff in such a way so as not to affect the tariff of the other categories. neither the act nor the tariff policy, by which the commission is to be guided, prohibits the increase of tariff for any category if it is on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2011 (TRI)

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai Vs. M/S Tcp Limited, Chennai and ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Mar-07-2011

..... omission to assert its right or insist upon its right can not amount to a waiver or dispensation within the meaning of section 63 of the indian contract act. (5) a person cannot be said to have waived its right unless it is established that his conduct was such so as to enable the ..... letter was sent on 29.11.2007 demanding for an escalated rate. again, another letter was sent on 25.3.2008 pointing out the existing rate contract expiring on 31.3.2008 and rate after 1.4.2008 have to be fixed after review. till then the respondent had been sending invoices only on ..... interest. the state commission ultimately, passed the impugned order on 25.02.2010 directing the appellant to pay to the 1st respondent, the difference between the contracted rate of rs. 3.15 per unit, rs. 3.32 per unit and rs. 3.49 per unit for the fy 2005-06, fy 2006-07 ..... the light of the above rival contentions, the following questions could arise for consideration: (i) whether the state commission is right in holding that the limitations act would not apply to the present proceedings and that there is no delay and latches on the part of the respondent (ii) whether the state commission ..... the claim petitions filed by the respondents are barred by period of limitation. even assuming that there is no period of limitation prescribed under the indian electricity act 2003, the claim petitions are to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches. (ii) the appellant conducted negotiations to persuade the respondents to accept .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //