Dismissed

Appeal No. 94 of 2013 of Vrl Logistics Ltd. v. Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors.

APTEL20 May 2013Appeal No. 94 of 2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity dismissed an appeal regarding a dissolved petition on interest claims. The Tribunal held the appeal was inadmissible as the impugned order was passed with the consent of both parties, leaving the remedy for a review before the original Commission.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as the impugned order was passed with the consent of both parties and no ground for admission was found.

Appeal No. 94 of 2013 of Vrl Logistics Ltd. Versus Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors. — APTEL (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

Appeal No. 94 of 2013

¶3

Dated : 20th May, 2013

¶4

Present : Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Nath, Technical Member

¶5

In the matter of:

¶6

VRL Logistics Ltd. Versus

¶7

….Appellant(s)

¶8

Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent (s)

¶9

Counsel for the Appellant (s): Mr. Ranvir Singh Ms. Shruti Singh Mr. Kaynat Seikh

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This is an Appeal filed against the Order passed by the Karnataka Commission dated 29.04.2010.

¶12

The Appellant had filed a Petition before the Karnataka Commission in O.P. No. 11 of 2009, claiming the amount towards the interest from the Respondent. But, on the basis of the Memo filed by the Respondent stating that the entire amount claimed in the Petition had been paid, the Karnataka Commission passed this impugned Order dated 29.04.2010 observing that since the Memo filed by the Respondent showed that the entire amount claimed by

¶13

the Petitioner was paid, no issue survived and the case was

¶14

disposed of accordingly.

¶15

¶16

As against the said Order, the Applicant/Appellant had preferred an Appeal before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the same stating that the remedy was to file Appeal before this Tribunal. Even then, the Appellant, instead of filing the Appeal, filed the Review before the High Court. The said petition also was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed an Appeal along with an Application to condone the delay before this Tribunal. The application to condone the delay is allowed. The Appeal was heard for admission.

¶17

The learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant submits that the impugned Order is apparently wrong since the Memo, which had been filed before the Commission, did not show that the interest amount, which has been claimed in the Petition, had been paid.

¶18

A perusal of the impugned Order dated 29.04.2010 would show that both the counsel were present and in their presence only this Order was passed. If the Applicant/Appellant felt that the Memo did not contain the correct particulars, the remedy before the Appellant is to file a Review against the said Order before the Commission itself, immediately thereafter. Without doing so, this Appeal had been filed firstly before the High Court and then before this Tribunal.

¶19

¶20

The impugned Order is passed with the consent of both the parties. Therefore, we do not find any ground to admit this Appeal as the remedy for the Applicant is not before the Tribunal but it lies

¶21

elsewhere.

¶22

With the above observation, the Appeal is dismissed.

¶23

( Rakesh Nath) (Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam) Technical Member Chairperson ts/sm

Appeal No. 94 of 2013 of Vrl Logistics Ltd. v. Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appeal No. 94 of 2013 of Vrl Logistics Ltd. v. Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Appeal No. 204 of 2012 of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Versus Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 188 of 2012 of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. Versus Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 84 of 2012 of Reliance Infrastructure Limited Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 83 of 2012 of Reliance Infrastructure Limited Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 101 of 2013 & I.A. No. 169 of 2013 Appeal No. 102 of 2013 & I.A. No. 170 of 2013 of Gvk Gautami Power Limited Versus Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. & Ors.

Appeal No. 179 of 2012 of Kerala High Tension and Extra High Tension Versus The Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 110 of 2013 & I.A. No. 181 of 2013 of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No.155 of 2012 of M/s. Sal Limited. Versus Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 204 of 2012 of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Versus Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 83 of 2012 of Reliance Infrastructure Limited Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 84 of 2012 of Reliance Infrastructure Limited Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No.88 of 2012 of Tata Teleservices Limited Versus Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Appeal No. 85 of 2012 of Reliance Infrastructure Limited Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory & Ors.

I.A. No. 107 of 2013 in Dfr No. 374 of 2013 of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.