SOLPO Round table Discussion on “The Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2022”

Mr. Matrugupta Mishra, Managing Partner was part of the esteemed delegates wherein he presented his views on the topic “Green Hydrogen: The Fading Footprints of Carbon” as part of the Round Table Discussion on “The Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2022” held on 17.12.2022 at Sahara Hotel Star, Mumbai, organised by Idam Infrastructure Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and […]

Directions Issued To Electricity Regulatory Commissions To Give Reasons For Not Referring a Non-Tariff Dispute To Arbitration: Appellate Tribunal For Electricity  

By: Nipun Dave and Ishita Thakur The Appellate Tribunal, in its Judgment dated 14.11.2022, passed in Appeal No. 397 of 2022 and Appeal No. 147 of 2021, has interpreted the expression “and to refer any dispute for arbitration” under Sections 86(1)(f) and 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) while […]

<strong>Information relating to the previous tariff period could not conceivably reflect the “<em>current state of affairs</em>” – Observed by APTEL in a matter challenging the determination of Cross Subsidy Surcharge by the Hon’ble Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission | Ritam Legal Represented M/s Vedanta Limited in the Matter.</strong>

The Hon’ble APTEL in the case of Vedanta Limited vs Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors., has set aside the Order dated 01.12.2016 (“Impugned Order”), passed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (“RERC”) in Petition No. RERC/817/2016, wherein it failed to calculate the tariff based on the current level of Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (“CSS”) in […]

Penalty not to be imposed on developers suffering from delay beyond its control –Observed by APTEL in the matter of HPCL vs. PNGRB | Ritam Legal represented HPCL in the matter.

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Petroleum and Natural Gas Bench) directed Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (‘PNGRB/Board’) for refund of encashed Bank Guarantee amount to HPCL which PNGRB arbitrarily withheld, even after remand back of the order in the previous round of litigation. Further, APTEL interpreted reasonable time contemplated under Regulation 16(a) of the […]