Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held that writ petitions for electrocution compensation are not maintainable where disputed facts exist, and compensation must be assessed on a just, fair basis.
The Supreme Court held that Indian Railways does not qualify as a deemed distribution licensee under the Electricity Act because its electric traction and distribution installations are confined to captive operational use and do not perform the statutory function of supplying electricity to consumers in an area of supply; accordingly Indian Railways is a consumer for electricity procured through open access and is liable to pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge and Additional Surcharge; draft legislative proposals do not alter this statutory position.
Source excerpt
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any artificial means not authorised by the licensee were employed to abstract energy or that the meter had been injured or tampered with; therefore the presumption under Section 39 and the statutory circumstances under Section 44 were not attracted, the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal was unsustainable on the facts, and the appellant must be acquitted.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the CERC and the APTEL that coal allocations (firm and tapering linkage) were made for the project as a whole and any shortfall met through imported/open market coal must be apportioned pro rata among all beneficiaries/DISCOMs in proportion to energy supplied; no substantial question of law arose under Section 125 CPC s.100 to warrant interference and GRIDCO was not a necessary party to the Section 63 petitions, therefore both appeals were dismissed.
Source excerpt
Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates that fixation of price for purchase of electricity and PPAs incorporating such price must be subject to review and approval by the State Commission; since the supplementary PPA dated 10.09.2010 effecting enhancement from ₹2.50 to ₹2.95 per kWh was not placed before or approved by the Commission, it could not be enforced. However, the Court declined to disturb the APTEL order awarding a weighted average tariff (and the Commission's consequential order) because HPSEB had not appealed and the revised tariff had been acted upon for a long tim…
Source excerpt
Because the Developer did not obtain an extension under Article 5.7 nor issue the notice required by Article 14.5, the preconditions for invocation of Article 4.4 were satisfied and CESC validly encashed the performance security; the State Commission and APTEL erred in treating the delay as Force Majeure and directing restoration, extension and renegotiation contrary to the express contractual scheme.
Source excerpt
Press Release dated 01.10.2009 is not 'law' under Article 13 and only subsequently published notifications (e.g. 11.12.2009 and 14.12.2009) could amount to law; appellants failed to satisfy essential FTP prerequisites (goods must be movable and 'manufactured in India', supply must be by main/sub-contractor, and procurement must follow ICB where required), therefore they were not entitled to deemed export benefits under Para 8.3 of the FTP and are not entitled to restitutionary compensation under the PPA.
Source excerpt
Tariff must be cost-reflective; a regulatory asset is an exceptional, regulatory measure recognizing an uncovered revenue gap and must be limited in quantum and time: guided by Rule 23 a regulatory asset should not exceed a reasonable percentage (Rule 23 prescribes 3% of ARR as guiding principle), any newly created gap must be liquidated within three years, and the existing regulatory asset shall be liquidated within a finite period (the Court directed liquidation of the existing regulatory asset in a maximum of four years starting 01.04.2024), Regulatory Commissions must provide a roadmap an…
Source excerpt
GUVNL could not, by virtue of PPAs containing a tariff applicable only to projects availing accelerated depreciation, bind respondent projects that did not in fact avail accelerated depreciation to that tariff in perpetuity where GUVNL had not secured written commitments from them to avail accelerated depreciation; the GERC and APTEL were correct in holding the respondents entitled to approach the GERC for project-wise tariff determination, and the appeals were dismissed.
Source excerpt
CERC Regulations, 2019 (including Note 3 of Regulation 55) limit the proportion of free energy for home State (FEHS) that may be taken into account for tariff determination to 13% but do not prohibit a generating company from supplying free power beyond 13% under a contractual Implementation Agreement; accordingly the Implementation Agreement was not overridden by the Regulations and the High Court erred in modifying the Agreement by writ when the regulatory forum and appellate mechanisms under the Electricity Act were available and the CERC's order addressed only PPAs/PSAs and was not appeal…
Source excerpt
Explore more
