June 5, 2025 12:42 pm

Electricity Act

“Supreme Court Rejects “Technicality”: Adani Power Loses Bid for Additional Payment from Rajasthan Discoms”

Bysclaw

Mar 23, 2024

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Electricity Act

Determination of ‘change in law’ compensation and carrying cost at LPS rates is governed by PPA restitutionary principles, effective from the event date, requiring supplementary billing after competent forum adjudication.

May 30, 2025 sclaw

Electricity Act

CERC’s Section 79(1) regulatory powers allow addressing consequences of delay not covered by Section 178 regulations or contracts; such orders are appealable under Section 111, not typically High Court writ. Dismissal of writ petitions by High Court despite alternative remedy is warranted when set exceptions are not met.

May 18, 2025 sclaw

Electricity Act

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.

Jun 10, 2024 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Maternity leave as a facet of reproductive rights and dignity is a constitutional guarantee, requiring service rules to be interpreted liberally, not restricting benefit based on children from a previous marriage not in the employee’s custody.

Jun 4, 2025 sclaw

A flawed investigation, suppression of material evidence in the form of contradictory witness affidavits, and failure to address glaring inconsistencies render prosecution evidence unreliable, necessitating acquittal to ensure a fair trial.

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw

Five golden principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence reiterated: (1) circumstances establishing conclusion of guilt must be fully established; (2) facts established consistent only with hypothesis of guilt; (3) circumstances conclusive in nature; (4) exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; (5) complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw

Appellant Trust’s contentions regarding non-demarcation, encroachment, and non-delivery of possession are baseless; demarcation was done and acknowledged, alleged encroachment is not proven by evidence, and delivery of possession was contingent on execution of lease deed, a condition appellant failed to meet — Respondent Corporation’s actions were in accordance with prescribed procedures and allotment terms

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw