SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 77

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED VERSUS DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
APPEAL No.69 2018



IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)

APPEAL No.69 OF 2018 APPEAL No.70 OF 2018 APPEAL No.71 OF 2018 APPEAL No.72 OF 2018 Dated: 21.07.2025 Present: Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member In the matter of:

APPEAL No. 69 OF 2018 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED A public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at BSES Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 … Appellant Versus DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Viniyamak Bhawan, C-Block, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110 017 … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Sr. Adv.

Vijayendra Pratap Singh Aditya Vikram Jalan Ankitesh Ojha Dhriti Batra Anant Narayan Misra Shreya Choudhary Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Tushar Jain APPEAL No. 70 OF 2018 BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED A public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, New Delhi – 110 032 through its Assistant Vice President Regulatory Department … Appellant Versus DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Viniyamak Bhawan, C-Block, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110 017 Through its Secretary …Respondent Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Sr. Adv.

Amit Kapur Anupam Varma Rahul Kinra Aditya Ajay Girdhar Gopal Khattar Isnain Muzamil Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Tushar Jain APPEAL No. 71 OF 2018 BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED A public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, New Delhi – 110 032 through its Assistant Vice President Regulatory Department … Appellant Versus DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Viniyamak Bhawan, C-Block, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110 017 Through its Secretary … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Sr. Adv.

Amit Kapur Anupam Varma Rahul Kinra Aditya Ajay Girdhar Gopal Khattar Isnain Muzamil Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Tushar Jain APPEAL No. 72 OF 2018 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED A public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at BSES Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 … Appellant Versus DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Viniyamak Bhawan, C-Block, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110 017 … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Sr. Adv.

Vijayendra Pratap Singh Aditya Vikram Jalan Ankitesh Ojha Dhriti Batra Anant Narayan Misra Shreya Choudhary Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Tushar Jain

J U D G M E N T

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (in short “BRPL”) which is appellant in appeal Nos.60 & 70 of 2018 and BSES Yamuna Power Limited (in short “BYPL”) which is appellant in appeal Nos.70 & 71 of 2018, have filed this batch of four appeals against the separate tariff orders dated 31.08.2017 passed by the 1st respondent Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in the tariff petitions filed by them, the details of which are given hereinbelow: -

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants BRPL and BYPL shall hereinafter be referred to as “discoms” or “appellants”.

3. Following 62 issues in total, which are common to all the four appeals, have been raised by the appellants for our consideration and adjudication: -

Issue No.1: Disallowance of capitalisation on account of nonavailability of Electrical Inspector Certificate.

Issue No.2: Disallowance of capitalisation pertaining to Reliance Energy Limited (REL) on ad-hoc basis.

Issue No.3A: Erroneous computation of depreciation for the first 11 months of FY 2007-08.

Issue No. 3B: Non-revision of O&M Expenses from FY 2008-09 to FY 2010-11 not revised in line with FY 2007- 08.

Issue No. 4: Revision in distribution loss from FY 2007- 08 up

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top