Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Sorted by: recent Court: appellate tribunal for electricity aptel Year: 2011 Page 5 of about 42 results (0.034 seconds)

Jan 13 2011 (TRI)

Gvk (Goindwal Sahib) Limited, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Punjab State Electric ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Jan-13-2011

..... breach on the part of the company and claim an amount equivalent to six months of the billing, at the approved quarter tariff and energy corresponding to 80% of the contracted capacity, as liquidated damages. further, the company shall not sell power to any third party till such termination payment is made to the electricity board. since these are the ..... direct the distribution licensee to re-write the terms found reasonable by the state commission. 17. in view of the above, the powers of the state commission under the act to take measures conducive to the development of the electricity industry, promoting competition, protecting the interest of the consumers and the supply of electricity to all areas cannot be questioned ..... that all future procurement of power by distribution licensees shall be through competitive route. that apart, the central government, in exercise of its power under section 63 of the act 2003, has notified the guidelines for determination of tariff by bidding process for procurement of power by distribution licensees. the central government after detailed consultations with the stake holders have ..... executed totally as per the draft ppa and as per the standard bid documents forming part of the guidelines notified by the government of india under section 63 of the act, 2003. the provisions relating to the performance guarantee, liquidated damages, performance test, appointment of engineers and various other terms should be brought in line with the draft ppa .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

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