The Appeal was disposed of as infructuous because the six-month period specified in the impugned order had already elapsed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction) (Chennai Circuit Bench)
Appeal no. 23 of 2013
Dated : 2 3 rd April, 2013
Present: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson Hon’ble Mr. V.J. Talwar, Technical Member
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation …Appellant(s)
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr.
…Respondent(s)
Counsel for the Appellant(s): Mr. S. Vallinayagam
Counsel for the Respondent(s):
ORDER
The Learned Counsel the Respondent no. 2 is absent today also. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent no.1 appeared before this Tribunal only once. He is also absent.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the entire period of 6 months for commissioning the plant mentioned in the impugned order is already over. In view of the above, the Appeal becomes infructuous.
With this observation, the Appeal is disposed of.
(V.J. Talwar) Technical Member mk
(Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam) Chairperson
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
M. Karpaga Vinayagam
V.J. Talwar
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal before a tribunal against an order of a statutory authority.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
