Appeal No. 119 of 2015. Case: BMM Ispat Limited Vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.. APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity)
| Case Number | Appeal No. 119 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Anantha Narayana M.G. |
| Judges | Ranjana P. Desai, J. (Chairperson) and I.J. Kapoor, Member (T) |
| Issue | Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 11 |
| Judgement Date | January 24, 2017 |
| Court | APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity) |
Order:
-
The Appellant is a coal based captive electricity generating company situated at Bellary District, Karnataka. Respondent No. 1 is the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission ("the State Commission"). Respondent No. 2 is Gulbarga Electricity Supply Corporation Limited with whom the Appellant had entered into Power Purchase Agreement ("PPA") for supply of electricity. Respondent No. 3 is the Chief Engineer of Respondent No. 2. In this appeal, the Appellant has challenged Order dated 22/01/2015 passed by the State Commission.
-
Gist of the case of the Appellant needs to be stated. The Appellant filed O.P. No. 24 of 2008 before the State Commission arraying Respondent No. 2 and two others and seeking direction for grant of No Objection or Standing Clearance for trading of power through power exchange. The Government of Karnataka, with effect from 30/12/2008, invoked Section 11 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("the said Act") and directed all electricity generating companies to supply power to the State Grid in view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State. The said order was revoked in May, 2009. In view of this development, the Appellant impleaded the Government of Karnataka in O.P. No. 24 of 2008. The said petition was partly allowed by the State Commission by giving direction to the Respondents to pay to the Appellant the amount calculated at Rs. 6.50 per unit for the electricity supplied pursuant to the Government of Karnataka's order under Section 11 of the said Act.
-
It is the case of the Appellant that inspite of the revocation of the order issued under Section 11 of the said Act by the Government of Karnataka, Respondent No. 2 continued to accept the energy supplied by the Appellant for the months of June, 2009 to November, 2009. Respondent No. 2 has issued acknowledgement in token of having received energy from the Appellant for the said period. There is no dispute about this fact. On 10/12/2009, the Appellant entered into a PPA with Respondent No. 2 for supply of power for the period from 01/12/2009 to 31/05/2010. According to the Appellant, inspite of the repeated demands, Respondent No. 2 did not make payment for the energy supplied by the Appellant to Respondent No. 2 for the period from June, 2009 to November, 2009. The Appellant, therefore, filed O.P. No. 29 of 2011 and O.P. No. 31 of 2011 in the State Commission praying that Respondent No. 2 be directed to pay the said amount with interest at 18% per...
To continue reading
Request your trial