| 1 |
APL No. 229 OF 2017 |
M/s. Wellknown Polyester Ltd. Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
M/s Wellknown Polyesters Limited has challenged the Tariff Order dated 25.07.2016 of the Commission wherein it has erred in increasing the cross subsidy surcharge from Rs 0/kWh to Rs 0.42/kW which has made Open Access unviable for the consumers of Daman & Diu. Further, requested the Tribunal to issue instructions to the Commission for implementing the methodology for determining cross subsidy surcharge according to the spirit of National Tariff Policy and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
06/02/2024 |
|
| 2 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
02/06/2023 |
|
| 3 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
02/06/2023 |
|
| 4 |
DFR No : 206 of 2021 & IA No. 1225 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
11/05/2022 |
|
| 5 |
DFR No : 322 of 2021 & IA No. 1393 OF 2021 & IA No. 1394 OF 2021 & IA No. 1819 OF 2021 |
The Electricity Department Andaman and Nicobar Administration Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
The Appellant prayed to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to pass an ad interim order to stay the operation of Tariff Order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the Commission in Petition No. 44/2021 wherein the Commission directed the Appellant to charge tariff from the Hotels under Industrial category instead of Commercial category. |
10/05/2022 |
|
| 6 |
DFR No : 309 of 2020 & IA No. 22 OF 2021 & IA No. 21 OF 2021 & IA No. 2067 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 18.05.2020Petition No. 19/2019 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL that the Commission has not considered the actual equity invested in the Project and therefore determined the incorrect return on equity. Further the Appellant also raised the issue pertaining to correct determination of repair & maintenance charges. It is alledged that the Commission has not provided the actual repair & maintenance expenses which were incurred to enhance the efficiency of the Power Plant. |
10/02/2022 |
|
| 7 |
DFR No : 206 of 2021 & IA No. 1225 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
09/02/2022 |
|
| 8 |
APL No. 336 OF 2022 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
08/08/2022 |
|
| 9 |
IA NO. 22 OF 2021 IN DFR NO. 309 OF 2020 & IA NOS. 21 & 2067 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 18.05.2020Petition No. 19/2019 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL that the Commission has not considered the actual equity invested in the Project and therefore determined the incorrect return on equity. Further the Appellant also raised the issue pertaining to correct determination of repair & maintenance charges. It is alledged that the Commission has not provided the actual repair & maintenance expenses which were incurred to enhance the efficiency of the Power Plant. |
08/03/2022 |
|
| 10 |
APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2018 & IA NO. 285 OF 2018 |
Federation of Industries Associations Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission for the State of Goa and Union Territories & Anr. |
Federation of Industries, Silvassa, has challenged the Commission’s Order dated 30.01.2018 wherein it has submitted that the Commission has wrongly reduced the revenue surplus of Rs 383.88 crore till 31.03.2016 by an amount of Rs 180 crore. The Commission considered Rs 180 crore as capital grant given to the Distribution Licensee by the Government of DNH. The Commission has also not considered for determination of tariff the rebate of Rs 100 crore granted by NTPC. Thus, a revenue gap of Rs 579.99 crore was created and in order to cover this gap the Commission has wrongly imposed regulatory surcharge of 9.7% on all consumers across the board. |
08/03/2022 |
|
| 11 |
APL-18/2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
07/10/2022 |
|
| 12 |
APL No. 18 OF 2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
07/10/2022 |
|
| 13 |
DFR No : 309 of 2020 & IA No. 22 OF 2021 & IA No. 21 OF 2021 & IA No. 2067 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 18.05.2020Petition No. 19/2019 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL that the Commission has not considered the actual equity invested in the Project and therefore determined the incorrect return on equity. Further the Appellant also raised the issue pertaining to correct determination of repair & maintenance charges. It is alledged that the Commission has not provided the actual repair & maintenance expenses which were incurred to enhance the efficiency of the Power Plant. |
07/01/2022 |
|
| 14 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
03/11/2022 |
|
| 15 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
03/11/2022 |
|
| 16 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
03/08/2022 |
|
| 17 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
03/08/2022 |
|
| 18 |
APL No. 48 OF 2018 & IA No. 285 OF 2018 |
Federation of Industries Associations Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission for the State of Goa and Union Territories & Anr |
Federation of Industries, Silvassa, has challenged the Commission’s Order dated 30.01.2018 wherein it has submitted that the Commission has wrongly reduced the revenue surplus of Rs 383.88 crore till 31.03.2016 by an amount of Rs 180 crore. The Commission considered Rs 180 crore as capital grant given to the Distribution Licensee by the Government of DNH. The Commission has also not considered for determination of tariff the rebate of Rs 100 crore granted by NTPC. Thus, a revenue gap of Rs 579.99 crore was created and in order to cover this gap the Commission has wrongly imposed regulatory surcharge of 9.7% on all consumers across the board. |
03/03/2022 |
|
| 19 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
02/12/2022 |
|
| 20 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
02/12/2022 |
|
| 21 |
APL No. 18 OF 2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
02/09/2022 |
|
| 22 |
DFR No : 206 of 2021 & IA No. 1225 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
02/03/2022 |
|
| 23 |
APL No. 48 OF 2018 & IA No. 285 OF 2018 |
Federation of Industries Associations Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission for the State of Goa and Union Territories & Anr. |
Federation of Industries, Silvassa, has challenged the Commission’s Order dated 30.01.2018 wherein it has submitted that the Commission has wrongly reduced the revenue surplus of Rs 383.88 crore till 31.03.2016 by an amount of Rs 180 crore. The Commission considered Rs 180 crore as capital grant given to the Distribution Licensee by the Government of DNH. The Commission has also not considered for determination of tariff the rebate of Rs 100 crore granted by NTPC. Thus, a revenue gap of Rs 579.99 crore was created and in order to cover this gap the Commission has wrongly imposed regulatory surcharge of 9.7% on all consumers across the board. |
02/03/2022 |
|
| 24 |
APL No. 336 OF 2022 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
01/12/2022 |
|
| 25 |
DFR No : 309 of 2020 & IA No. 22 OF 2021 & IA No. 21 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 18.05.2020Petition No. 19/2019 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL that the Commission has not considered the actual equity invested in the Project and therefore determined the incorrect return on equity. Further the Appellant also raised the issue pertaining to correct determination of repair & maintenance charges. It is alledged that the Commission has not provided the actual repair & maintenance expenses which were incurred to enhance the efficiency of the Power Plant. |
11/08/2021 |
|
| 26 |
DFR No : 206 of 2021 & IA No. 1225 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
10/12/2021 |
|
| 27 |
APL No. 48 OF 2018 & IA No. 285 OF 2018 |
Federation of Industries Associations Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission for the State of Goa and Union Territories & Anr. |
Federation of Industries, Silvassa, has challenged the Commission’s Order dated 30.01.2018 wherein it has submitted that the Commission has wrongly reduced the revenue surplus of Rs 383.88 crore till 31.03.2016 by an amount of Rs 180 crore. The Commission considered Rs 180 crore as capital grant given to the Distribution Licensee by the Government of DNH. The Commission has also not considered for determination of tariff the rebate of Rs 100 crore granted by NTPC. Thus, a revenue gap of Rs 579.99 crore was created and in order to cover this gap the Commission has wrongly imposed regulatory surcharge of 9.7% on all consumers across the board. |
10/02/2021 |
|
| 28 |
APL No. 48 OF 2018 & IA No. 285 OF 2018 |
Federation of Industries Associations Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission for the State of Goa and Union Territories & Anr. |
Federation of Industries, Silvassa, has challenged the Commission’s Order dated 30.01.2018 wherein it has submitted that the Commission has wrongly reduced the revenue surplus of Rs 383.88 crore till 31.03.2016 by an amount of Rs 180 crore. The Commission considered Rs 180 crore as capital grant given to the Distribution Licensee by the Government of DNH. The Commission has also not considered for determination of tariff the rebate of Rs 100 crore granted by NTPC. Thus, a revenue gap of Rs 579.99 crore was created and in order to cover this gap the Commission has wrongly imposed regulatory surcharge of 9.7% on all consumers across the board. |
04/08/2021 |
|
| 29 |
APL-18/2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
02/02/2021 |
|
| 30 |
APL-18/2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
06/10/2020 |
|
| 31 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
07/11/2019 |
|
| 32 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
07/11/2019 |
|
| 33 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
03/12/2019 |
|
| 34 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
03/02/2019 |
|
| 35 |
DFR No : 322 of 2021 & IA No. 1393 OF 2021 & IA No. 1394 OF 2021 & IA No. |
The Electricity Department Andaman and Nicobar Administration Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
The Appellant prayed to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to pass an ad interim order to stay the operation of Tariff Order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the Commission in Petition No. 44/2021 wherein the Commission directed the Appellant to charge tariff from the Hotels under Industrial category instead of Commercial category. |
19/04/2022 |
|
| 36 |
DFR No : 322 of 2021 & IA No. 1393 OF 2021 & IA No. 1394 OF 2021 & IA No. 1819 OF 2021 |
The Electricity Department Andaman and Nicobar Administration Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
The Appellant prayed to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to pass an ad interim order to stay the operation of Tariff Order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the Commission in Petition No. 44/2021 wherein the Commission directed the Appellant to charge tariff from the Hotels under Industrial category instead of Commercial category. |
25/05/2022 |
|
| 37 |
IA NO.1393OF 2021 IN DFR NO.322 OF 2021 & IA NOs.1394 & 1819 OF 2021, |
The Electricity Department Andaman and Nicobar Administration Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr |
The Appellant prayed to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to pass an ad interim order to stay the operation of Tariff Order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the Commission in Petition No. 44/2021 wherein the Commission directed the Appellant to charge tariff from the Hotels under Industrial category instead of Commercial category. |
15/07/2022 |
|
| 38 |
APPEAL NO.296 OF 2022 APPEAL NO.297 OF 2022 AND APPEAL NO.298 OF 2022 |
The Electricity Department Andaman and Nicobar Administration Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. |
The Appellant prayed to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to pass an ad interim order to stay the operation of Tariff Order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the Commission in Petition No. 44/2021 wherein the Commission directed the Appellant to charge tariff from the Hotels under Industrial category instead of Commercial category. |
17/11/2022 |
|
| 39 |
APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2022 APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2022 AND APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2022 |
The Electricity Department Andaman and Nicobar Administration Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors |
The Appellant prayed to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to pass an ad interim order to stay the operation of Tariff Order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the Commission in Petition No. 44/2021 wherein the Commission directed the Appellant to charge tariff from the Hotels under Industrial category instead of Commercial category. |
24/11/2022 |
|
| 40 |
APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2022 APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2022 AND APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2022 |
The Electricity Department Andaman and Nicobar Administration Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. |
The Appellant prayed to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to pass an ad interim order to stay the operation of Tariff Order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the Commission in Petition No. 44/2021 wherein the Commission directed the Appellant to charge tariff from the Hotels under Industrial category instead of Commercial category. |
19/01/2023 |
|
| 41 |
APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2022 APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2022 AND APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2022 |
The Electricity Department Andaman and Nicobar Administration Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. |
The Appellant prayed to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to pass an ad interim order to stay the operation of Tariff Order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the Commission in Petition No. 44/2021 wherein the Commission directed the Appellant to charge tariff from the Hotels under Industrial category instead of Commercial category. |
20/01/2023 |
|
| 42 |
DFR No : 206 of 2021 & IA No. 1225 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
23/11/2021 |
|
| 43 |
DFR No : 206 of 2021 & IA No. 1225 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
31/03/2022 |
|
| 44 |
DFR No : 206 of 2021 & IA No. 1225 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
27/05/2022 |
|
| 45 |
DFR No : 206 of 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
13/07/2022 |
|
| 46 |
APL No. 336 OF 2022 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 23.03.2021 in Petition No. 37/2020 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL to allow the present Appeal and set aside the Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the JERC to the extent challenged in the present appeal. |
27/10/2022 |
|
| 47 |
DFR No : 309 of 2020 & IA No. 22 OF 2021 & IA No. 21 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 18.05.2020Petition No. 19/2019 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL that the Commission has not considered the actual equity invested in the Project and therefore determined the incorrect return on equity. Further the Appellant also raised the issue pertaining to correct determination of repair & maintenance charges. It is alledged that the Commission has not provided the actual repair & maintenance expenses which were incurred to enhance the efficiency of the Power Plant. |
20/10/2021 |
|
| 48 |
DFR No : 309 of 2020 & IA No. 22 OF 2021 & IA No. 21 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commissio |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 18.05.2020Petition No. 19/2019 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL that the Commission has not considered the actual equity invested in the Project and therefore determined the incorrect return on equity. Further the Appellant also raised the issue pertaining to correct determination of repair & maintenance charges. It is alledged that the Commission has not provided the actual repair & maintenance expenses which were incurred to enhance the efficiency of the Power Plant. |
22/12/2021 |
|
| 49 |
DFR No : 309 of 2020 & IA No. 22 OF 2021 & IA No. 21 OF 2021 & IA No. 2067 OF 2021 |
DNH Power Distribution Corporation Limited Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission |
The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Tariff Order dated 18.05.2020Petition No. 19/2019 wherein the Appellant prayed the APTEL that the Commission has not considered the actual equity invested in the Project and therefore determined the incorrect return on equity. Further the Appellant also raised the issue pertaining to correct determination of repair & maintenance charges. It is alledged that the Commission has not provided the actual repair & maintenance expenses which were incurred to enhance the efficiency of the Power Plant. |
24/02/2022 |
|
| 50 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
28/01/2020 |
|
| 51 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
26/03/2020 |
|
| 52 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
21/05/2020 |
|
| 53 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
27/08/2020 |
|
| 54 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
26/11/2020 |
|
| 55 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
23/09/2021 |
|
| 56 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
21/04/2022 |
|
| 57 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
19/07/2022 |
|
| 58 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
28/09/2022 |
|
| 59 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
13/01/2023 |
|
| 60 |
APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2017 & IA NOs. 857 & 950 OF 2017 & IA NO. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
28/02/223 |
|
| 61 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
21/04/2023 |
|
| 62 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 857 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
13/07/2023 |
|
| 63 |
APL No. 331 OF 2017 & IA No. 950 OF 2017 & IA No. 953 OF 2020 |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
After vacation of stay granted to M/s SPCL by the tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2017, the Electricity Department, A&N Administration has filed a Petition before the Commission for non compliance of it’s order dated 13.01.2017 wherein SPCL was directed to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- . In this appeal M/s SPCL challenged the Commission’s Order dated 08.09.2017 wherein the Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh along with an additional penalty of Rs 6,000/-Per Day from 14.01.2017 to 19.02.2017 and from 04.08.2017 till the date amount of Rs 9,67,07,816/- is paid to them |
14/08/2023 |
|
| 64 |
APL No. 48 OF 2018 & IA No. 285 OF 2018 |
Federation of Industries Associations Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission for the State of Goa and Union Territories & Anr |
Federation of Industries, Silvassa, has challenged the Commission’s Order dated 30.01.2018 wherein it has submitted that the Commission has wrongly reduced the revenue surplus of Rs 383.88 crore till 31.03.2016 by an amount of Rs 180 crore. The Commission considered Rs 180 crore as capital grant given to the Distribution Licensee by the Government of DNH. The Commission has also not considered for determination of tariff the rebate of Rs 100 crore granted by NTPC. Thus, a revenue gap of Rs 579.99 crore was created and in order to cover this gap the Commission has wrongly imposed regulatory surcharge of 9.7% on all consumers across the board. |
13/11/2019 |
|
| 65 |
APL No. 48 OF 2018 & IA No. 285 OF 2018 |
Federation of Industries Associations Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission for the State of Goa and Union Territories & Anr. |
Federation of Industries, Silvassa, has challenged the Commission’s Order dated 30.01.2018 wherein it has submitted that the Commission has wrongly reduced the revenue surplus of Rs 383.88 crore till 31.03.2016 by an amount of Rs 180 crore. The Commission considered Rs 180 crore as capital grant given to the Distribution Licensee by the Government of DNH. The Commission has also not considered for determination of tariff the rebate of Rs 100 crore granted by NTPC. Thus, a revenue gap of Rs 579.99 crore was created and in order to cover this gap the Commission has wrongly imposed regulatory surcharge of 9.7% on all consumers across the board. |
24/01/2020 |
|
| 66 |
APL No. 48 OF 2018 & IA No. 285 OF 2018 |
Federation of Industries Associations Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission for the State of Goa and Union Territories & Anr |
Federation of Industries, Silvassa, has challenged the Commission’s Order dated 30.01.2018 wherein it has submitted that the Commission has wrongly reduced the revenue surplus of Rs 383.88 crore till 31.03.2016 by an amount of Rs 180 crore. The Commission considered Rs 180 crore as capital grant given to the Distribution Licensee by the Government of DNH. The Commission has also not considered for determination of tariff the rebate of Rs 100 crore granted by NTPC. Thus, a revenue gap of Rs 579.99 crore was created and in order to cover this gap the Commission has wrongly imposed regulatory surcharge of 9.7% on all consumers across the board. |
17/03/2020 |
|
| 67 |
APL No. 229 OF 2017 |
M/s. Wellknown Polyester Ltd. Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
M/s Wellknown Polyesters Limited has challenged the Tariff Order dated 25.07.2016 of the Commission wherein it has erred in increasing the cross subsidy surcharge from Rs 0/kWh to Rs 0.42/kW which has made Open Access unviable for the consumers of Daman & Diu. Further, requested the Tribunal to issue instructions to the Commission for implementing the methodology for determining cross subsidy surcharge according to the spirit of National Tariff Policy and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
16/12/2019 |
|
| 68 |
APL No. 229 OF 2017 |
M/s. Wellknown Polyester Ltd. Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
M/s Wellknown Polyesters Limited has challenged the Tariff Order dated 25.07.2016 of the Commission wherein it has erred in increasing the cross subsidy surcharge from Rs 0/kWh to Rs 0.42/kW which has made Open Access unviable for the consumers of Daman & Diu. Further, requested the Tribunal to issue instructions to the Commission for implementing the methodology for determining cross subsidy surcharge according to the spirit of National Tariff Policy and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
26/03/2020 |
|
| 69 |
APL No. 229 OF 2017 |
M/s. Wellknown Polyester Ltd. Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
M/s Wellknown Polyesters Limited has challenged the Tariff Order dated 25.07.2016 of the Commission wherein it has erred in increasing the cross subsidy surcharge from Rs 0/kWh to Rs 0.42/kW which has made Open Access unviable for the consumers of Daman & Diu. Further, requested the Tribunal to issue instructions to the Commission for implementing the methodology for determining cross subsidy surcharge according to the spirit of National Tariff Policy and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
21/05/2020 |
|
| 70 |
APL No. 229 OF 2017 |
M/s. Wellknown Polyester Ltd. Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
M/s Wellknown Polyesters Limited has challenged the Tariff Order dated 25.07.2016 of the Commission wherein it has erred in increasing the cross subsidy surcharge from Rs 0/kWh to Rs 0.42/kW which has made Open Access unviable for the consumers of Daman & Diu. Further, requested the Tribunal to issue instructions to the Commission for implementing the methodology for determining cross subsidy surcharge according to the spirit of National Tariff Policy and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
27/08/2020 |
|
| 71 |
APL No. 229 OF 2017 |
M/s. Wellknown Polyester Ltd. Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
M/s Wellknown Polyesters Limited has challenged the Tariff Order dated 25.07.2016 of the Commission wherein it has erred in increasing the cross subsidy surcharge from Rs 0/kWh to Rs 0.42/kW which has made Open Access unviable for the consumers of Daman & Diu. Further, requested the Tribunal to issue instructions to the Commission for implementing the methodology for determining cross subsidy surcharge according to the spirit of National Tariff Policy and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
26/11/2020 |
|
| 72 |
APL No. 229 OF 2017 |
M/s. Wellknown Polyester Ltd. Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr |
M/s Wellknown Polyesters Limited has challenged the Tariff Order dated 25.07.2016 of the Commission wherein it has erred in increasing the cross subsidy surcharge from Rs 0/kWh to Rs 0.42/kW which has made Open Access unviable for the consumers of Daman & Diu. Further, requested the Tribunal to issue instructions to the Commission for implementing the methodology for determining cross subsidy surcharge according to the spirit of National Tariff Policy and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
23/09/2021 |
|
| 73 |
APPEAL NO.229 OF 2017 |
M/s. Wellknown Polyester Ltd. Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
M/s Wellknown Polyesters Limited has challenged the Tariff Order dated 25.07.2016 of the Commission wherein it has erred in increasing the cross subsidy surcharge from Rs 0/kWh to Rs 0.42/kW which has made Open Access unviable for the consumers of Daman & Diu. Further, requested the Tribunal to issue instructions to the Commission for implementing the methodology for determining cross subsidy surcharge according to the spirit of National Tariff Policy and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
21/04/2022 |
|
| 74 |
APL No. 229 OF 2017 |
M/s. Wellknown Polyester Ltd. Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr |
M/s Wellknown Polyesters Limited has challenged the Tariff Order dated 25.07.2016 of the Commission wherein it has erred in increasing the cross subsidy surcharge from Rs 0/kWh to Rs 0.42/kW which has made Open Access unviable for the consumers of Daman & Diu. Further, requested the Tribunal to issue instructions to the Commission for implementing the methodology for determining cross subsidy surcharge according to the spirit of National Tariff Policy and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
14/02/2024 |
|
| 75 |
APL No. 229 OF 2017 |
M/s. Wellknown Polyester Ltd. Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr. |
M/s Wellknown Polyesters Limited has challenged the Tariff Order dated 25.07.2016 of the Commission wherein it has erred in increasing the cross subsidy surcharge from Rs 0/kWh to Rs 0.42/kW which has made Open Access unviable for the consumers of Daman & Diu. Further, requested the Tribunal to issue instructions to the Commission for implementing the methodology for determining cross subsidy surcharge according to the spirit of National Tariff Policy and the Electricity Act, 2003. |
21/02/2024 |
|
| 76 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
28/01/2020 |
|
| 77 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
26/03/2020 |
|
| 78 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
21/05/2020 |
|
| 79 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
27//08/2020 |
|
| 80 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
26/11/2020 |
|
| 81 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
23/09/2021 |
|
| 82 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
21/04/2022 |
|
| 83 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
19/07/2022 |
|
| 84 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
28/09/2022 |
|
| 85 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
13/01/2023 |
|
| 86 |
APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2017 & IA NOS. 403 & 487 OF 2017 & IA NO. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
28/02/2023 |
|
| 87 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
21/04/2023 |
|
| 88 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 487 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
13/07/2023 |
|
| 89 |
APL No. 34 OF 2017 & IA No. 403 OF 2017 & IA No. 954 OF 2020 |
M/s. Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Electricity Department, Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors. |
M/s Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited has challenged the Commission’s Tariff Order dated 13.01.2017 wherein the Commission has considered the project cost of Rs 74.96 crore fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and directed the Appellant to pay Rs 9,67,07,816/- to the ED, A&N Admn. & others. The Tribunal granted stay of the Commission’s Order dated 13.01.2017 and directed M/s SPCL to furnish Bank Guarantee of R 9,67,07,816/- within 30 days. Subsequently, the tribunal vacated the stay as M/s SPCL failed to furnish the Bank Guarantee and granted liberty to Electricity Department A&N Administration to take suitable action for recovery of the said amount. |
14/08/2023 |
|
| 90 |
APL-18/2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
28/04/2020 |
|
| 91 |
APL-18/2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
21/07/2020 |
|
| 92 |
APL No. 18 OF 2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
27/07/2021 |
|
| 93 |
APL-18/2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
22/02/2022 |
|
| 94 |
APL-18/2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
22/04/2022 |
|
| 95 |
APL No. 18 OF 2017 |
M/s Green Energy Association Vs. JERC &Ors. (Electricity Department and Renewable Energy Agencies for the State of Goa and Union Territories). |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
20/07/2022 |
|
| 96 |
APL-18/2017 |
M/s. Green Energy Association Vs Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. |
M/s Green Energy Association prayed to the Commission to set aside the Tariff Order dated 26.07.2016 to the extent it had allowed various Electricity Departments to fulfil the pending RPO targets (period 2010-11 to 2014-15) over a period of 3 years. M/s Green Energy Association further requested that the Tribunal should direct various Electricity Departments to create funds to comply solar RPO shortfall for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. |
04/02/0220 |
|
