Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the punjab tax on lotteries act 2005 Court: appellate tribunal for electricity aptel Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.092 seconds)

Jul 02 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Lanco Kondapalli Power Limited, Hyderabad Vs. Andhra Pradesh Powe ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Jul-02-2012

..... arising between the state government on one side and any person on the other shall be determined by arbitration. if that were the meaning of the sub section. (b) the punjab state electricity board vs. bassi cold storage reported in 1994 air sc, page 2544 having found that the dispute of the present nature cannot be subject matter of arbitration being ..... implied. since section 86(1)(f) is a special provision for adjudicating disputes between licensees and generating companies, in our opinion by implication section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 will not apply to such disputes i.e. disputes between licensees and generating companies. this is because of the principle that the special lawoverrides the general law. for ..... and if so, whether it is necessary to direct the respondent to pay late payment charges on account of delay in reimbursement of minimum alternate tax (mat) ? (2) whether the claim for the period 2001-02 to 2005-06 is barred by limitation? 13. in respect of the first issue, the respondents themselves conceded that claim for reimbursement of mat for the ..... appoint any arbitrator as provided under ppa, the appellant approached the high court of andhra pradesh and filed arbitration application no.31/2004 under section 11 (6) of the arbitration act 1996 on 27.4.2004 praying for appointment of arbitrator. aptransco (r-2) contested the said application challenging the maintainability of arbitration proceedings over the dispute between the generating company .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 2012 (TRI)

M/S. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited, (U.P.) Vs. Haryana Electricity ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Decided on : Jul-20-2012

..... ppa was expressly excluded. (g) thereafter, the ptc (r-3) entered into four power sale agreements (psas) with various utilities of four states namely (1) punjab state electricity board (2) uttar pradesh power corporation ltd (3) haryana power generation corporation ltd (r-2) and (4) rajasthan discoms. these psas were entered into ..... .3.2006 between the ptc and appellant was that the entire power contracted under the ppa would be supplied to the states of haryana, rajasthan, punjab and up. the contention of the appellant that four different state commissions cannot have jurisdiction over same issue is without any basis in law. the ..... central excise (2007) 6 scc 769 (f) baradakanta misra v. bhimsen dixit (1973) 1 scc 446 (g) suresh desai and associates v. commissioner of income tax (delhi hc) (1998) 230 itr 912 (delhi) 126. in reply to this submission made by the senior learned counsel for ptc (r-3), the learned senior ..... 2 scc 343, m.c. chacko versus the state bank of travancore, trivandum (c) (1977) 3 scc 147, the bhopal sugar industries ltd. versus sales tax officer, bhopal (d) lanco amarkantak power pvt ltd. v. madhya pradesh electricity regulatory commission before the appellate tribunal for electricity in appeal no.7 of 2009 dated ..... 3) is a process within the meaning of the section 86(1)(b) of the act. 24. in other words, even though the haryana power (r-2) was not the party to the ppa dated 19.10.2005 and the amended agreement dated 18.9.2006, the parties to the ppa have intended .....

Tag this Judgment!


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