Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

SECI
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court added that if the payment of Rs.10 crores along with interest as directed, is not refunded within six months from the date of this order, SECI will be entitled to recover Rs. 10 crores plus interest as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

tribunal monthly may 2023
Legal RoundUpTribunals/Regulatory Bodies/Commissions Monthly Roundup

Know about why NGT formed Joint Committee for environmental norms violations in constructions at CM Kejriwal’s residence, relevancy of intent of Corporate Debtor, threshold limit under IBC Code, compensation in Ludhiana Gas Leak incident, etc.

central electricity regulatory commission
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

In accordance with Regulation 3(3) of the Trading Licence Regulations, for a person applying for Category `IV`, a trading licence should have a net worth of Rs. 10 crore and should have maintained minimum current ratio and liquidity ratio of 1:1, as on date of audited balance sheet accompanying the application.

adani power
Case BriefsSupreme Court

The Supreme Court opined that it is unjust on the part of Haryana Utilities to say that 70% of the installed capacity should be further bifurcated and the Change in Law benefit should be restricted only to 70% of the installed capacity.

aptel
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme court was of the opinion that the “casual approach of APTEL, in not reasoning how such findings could be rendered, cannot be countenanced. As a judicial tribunal, dealing with contracts and bargains, which are entered into by parties with equal bargaining power, APTEL is not expected to casually render findings of coercion, or fraud, without proper pleadings or proof, or without probing into evidence.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court rejected the contention forwarded by defendant 3 to the effect that the present issue had an impact on tariff, as the actions of the plaintiff had prevented the applicant from supplying power to defendant 3 under the PSA resulting into defendant 3 being forced to secure power from the open market at rates much higher than the tariff determined.