Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“As per transfer scheme issued under Section 131 of Electricity Act 2003, the Distribution companies cannot be treated as successors in the interest of the Bihar State Electricity Boards in respect of any surplus found in the books of BSEB relating to the period prior to re-organisation.”
APTEL said that the sufficient cause to be shown by an applicant, for the delay to be condoned, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, it would not be justified to apply a uniform criterion to determine whether the cause shown is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
“It is an established legal principle that any administrative action / order does not absolve a party to a valid and subsisting Power Purchase Agreement from discharging its obligation under the PPA.”
The Tribunal regarded the hike in violation of Section 61(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and against the larger public interest, which is one of the critical factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether to grant interim relief.
APTEL said that in accordance with the guidelines and the CERC Regulations, the Appropriate Commission, the trading margin shall be decided mutually by the SECI, the trading licensee and the WPPs and in turn by the distribution licensees.
Supreme Court has requested the Union of India along with Ministry of Power to evolve a mechanism so as to ensure timely payment by the DISCOMS to the Generating Companies, which would avoid huge carrying cost to be passed over to the end consumers.
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.
Here’s a run-through of all the significant decisions covered in the month of July, 2021 under the Section of Tribunals/Commission/Regulatory Bodies. Appellate