The aspect of the knowledge of the pending proceedings before the Courts in Indonesia of the Appellant is a very important point to be considered to decide this issue. Perusal of the above facts of the case would establish that the there was an on..

The aspect of the knowledge of the pending proceedings before the Courts in Indonesia of the Appellant is a very important point to be considered to decide this issue. Perusal of the above facts of the case would establish that the there was an on-going litigation involving the mining rights of the coal supplier at the time of signing of coal supply agreement. The learned Counsel for the Distribution License contended that these facts ought to have been known to the Appellant. On the other hand, the Appellant has submitted that the Distribution Licensee (Respondent) did not raise these issues before the State Commission and without dealing with those issues the State Commission has merely dealt with the issue from the action of Foreign Government instrumentality and held that Clause 12.3 of the PPA permits only the action by the Indian Government instrumentality can be the ground for force Majeure. These factual aspects admittedly, have not been placed before the State Commission. Thus, the State Commission did not deal with the various factual aspects raised by the Distribution Licensee before this Tribunal for the first time especially with reference to knowledge of the Appellant about the pendency of the litigation and the amendment to the Coal Supply Agreement. view of our above summary of our findings, we feel that this matter be remanded to the State Commission for examining the issue raised by the Distribution Licensee regarding the knowledge of the Appellant on the on-going litigation and amendment to the Coal Supply Agreement and the facts thereon. Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the State Commission with the direction that these issues must be considered afresh in the light of the materials to be furnished by both the parties and decide the same in accordance with the law. 38. The State Commission is directed to go into the issue in the light of the observations made above. Both the parties must cooperate with the State Commission for the expeditious disposal of the matter by furnishing all the details to the State Commission.

Electricity Act, 2003

State Commission has re-examined and readjudicated the issue regarding covering of annual overhauling in force majeure condition in the impugned order dated 30.11.2012 which was already decided vide its order dated 22.6.2010 thus acting in contrav..

State Commission has re-examined and readjudicated the issue regarding covering of annual overhauling in force majeure condition in the impugned order dated 30.11.2012 which was already decided vide its order dated 22.6.2010 thus acting in contravention of the principle of res judicata. ii) We are not in agreement with the contention of the Appellant that units for supply to the distribution licensee had to be earmarked in advance. The dispensation allowed in the order dated 30.4.2010 for the period 2010-11 for PPAs entered into for a period of one year could not be applied in the present case. The result of our findings in terms of the order dated 22.6.2010 of the State Commission is that outage of unit 3 of 135 MW capacity for the period 24.7.2009 to 05.8.2009 due to fire in APH would qualify for force majeure for calculation of load factor and outage of units 3 and 4 due to annual overhauling would not qualify for force majeure. The Appellant is accordingly directed to calculate the load factor and make payment due to the Respondent no.2 at the earliest. In view of our above findings the Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs

The Electricity Act, 2003

No power generator or power developer shall be entitled to the benefit of new regulation or subsequent \order which is to be enforced from the subsequent date on the ground that the said project has been commissioned ahead the scheduled commission..

No power generator or power developer shall be entitled to the benefit of new regulation or subsequent \order which is to be enforced from the subsequent date on the ground that the said project has been commissioned ahead the scheduled commissioning date. It is not the case of the appellant that the cost of the project was high or the return on investment was inadequate or the project was commercially unviable due to change in circumstances. On the other hand, the appellant sought a higher tariff based on a subsequent regulation which was effective for a subsequent date only on the ground that the project was commissioned before the scheduled date and if the project was commissioned as per the schedule agreed in the implementation agreement, they would be entitled to tariff as per the subsequent regulations This is not a valid reason for redetermination of tariff. In other words, the appellant wants retrospective application of the regulation notified on 01.01.2013 which is not permissible. 19. In the light of above discussions, in our view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.06.2013, passed by learned Kerala Commission , hence the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. Pronounced in open Court on this day of 3rd day of January, 2014. 

The Electricity Act, 2003

State Commission has correctly held that the rebate of 7.5% is admissible to the consumers having connected load of more than 100 KW and supplied at 11 KV up to 31.3.2010. The tariff decided by the State Commission against the various orders from ..

State Commission has correctly held that the rebate of 7.5% is admissible to the consumers having connected load of more than 100 KW and supplied at 11 KV up to 31.3.2010. The tariff decided by the State Commission against the various orders from 2006-07 to 2009-10 specifically allowing the above rebate have attained finality and they could not be challenged now by the Distribution licensee under the garb of seeking clarification. In view of our above conclusions, the Appeals are dismissed as devoid of merits. However, there is no order as to cost. Pronounced in the Open Court on this 07th day of March, 2014. 

The Electricity Act, 2003

Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007

In view of the above discussions, we observe that the State commission is justified in observing that the tariff for the period prior to 21.5.2009 would be fixed on plant specific and not on generalized basis and we do not find any cogent or suffi..

In view of the above discussions, we observe that the State commission is justified in observing that the tariff for the period prior to 21.5.2009 would be fixed on plant specific and not on generalized basis and we do not find any cogent or sufficient ground to differ from the findings of the State Commission. The State Commission by orders dated 21.5.2009 and 29.6.2010 determined generic tariff based on financial and operational norms decided from the date of the respective orders. The Appellants who had entered into PPA for sale of energy from their co-generation plants to the Electricity Board on 17.9.2007 and 18.9.2007 should have filed a petition at the appropriate time for determination of specific tariff for their plants from the commencement of supply for their plants. The State Commission could not have determined the plant specific tariff for the Appellants for FY 2007-08 & 2008-09 in the suo-motu proceedings initiated for determination of the generic tariff for supply of power from co-generation plants to the Electricity Board. We also agree to the findings recorded by the State Commission on this issue  in the impugned order. This issue is, accordingly decided against the Appellants. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the State Commission in its impugned order dated 18.07.2012. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed since it has no merits and the impugned order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned State Commission is hereby upheld. No order as to costs.

Electricity Act, 2003

Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007

Appellant is entitled to claim increase in project cost due to change in scope of work of the Railway Siding due to additional works as a result of change in condition of approval by the Railway as per the provisions of the PPA under Article 13. H..

Appellant is entitled to claim increase in project cost due to change in scope of work of the Railway Siding due to additional works as a result of change in condition of approval by the Railway as per the provisions of the PPA under Article 13. However, the Appellant is not entitled to claim cost escalation, if any, in the works envisaged in the “In-Principle” approval of the Appeal no. 207 of 2012 Page 64 of 64 Railway which formed part of the bid documents. The Appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order is set aside to that extent. No order as to costs. The State Commission is directed to pass consequential order at the earliest preferably within 3 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of April, 2014. 

The Electricity Act, 2003

The Appellant is an aggrieved person and as such it is entitled to file the Appeal. (b) The condition imposed on the Appellant to maintain the value of its Letter of Credit equivalent to the outstanding invoices while directing the Gujarat Petrone..

The Appellant is an aggrieved person and as such it is entitled to file the Appeal. (b) The condition imposed on the Appellant to maintain the value of its Letter of Credit equivalent to the outstanding invoices while directing the Gujarat Petronet not to take coercive steps in the Impugned Order is fair and justified In view of the above, there is no merit in the Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Main Appeal, no Order need be passed in IA No.369 of 2013 45. The Appellant is directed to comply with the impugned orders of the Petroleum Board forthwith without any delay. The Petroleum Board may take up the Main matter and dispose of the same as early as possible after hearing the parties.

Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006

Tribunals have considered the submissions.  In our view, error is apparent in the order of the Tribunal, as the status of the applicant-respondent has not been the same as that of Shivendra Pal or Naresh Bagri.  They were working as driv..

Tribunals have considered the submissions.  In our view, error is apparent in the order of the Tribunal, as the status of the applicant-respondent has not been the same as that of Shivendra Pal or Naresh Bagri.  They were working as driver, which is a Group C post on no work no wages basis; whereas the applicant-respondent was working as a casual worker with temporary status. It is a matter of common knowledge that appointment as causal worker is made against Group D post.  Besides, it is also not mentioned in the order of the Tribunal that the applicant had ever applied for the post of Driver. Thus, the applicant not having worked on the post of Driver on casual basis cannot claim benefit of age relaxation or other relaxation which has been extended to Shivender Pal and Naresh Bagri in terms of the order of the Tribunal. In view of the above, in our view, the Review Application deserves to be allowed.  It is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 22.12.2011 is hereby recalled and the OA is restored to its original number. Let the OA itself be listed for final disposal on 29.5.2014.