Golden girl Ennis-Hill was not at her best in the throwing event in Rio but was able to jump up one place from third after registering a 13.86m throw.

Day eight saw Mo Farah win gold in the 10,000m, as Jess Ennis-Hill took silver in the heptathlon and Greg Rutherford claimed a bronze medal in the men's long jump competition.

Jessica Ennis-Hill remains on course to defend her Olympic heptathlon title with just two events remaining after producing a solid performance in the long jump.

MARTHA KELNER: Jessica Ennis-Hill won the most stunning of silver medals on Sunday, coming within two seconds of defending her title as Belgium’s Nafissatou Thiam clinched gold.

Britain's bronze medal long jumper Greg Rutherford had an emotional reunion with his partner Susie Verrill and son Milo, while silver medallist Mark Cavendish also returned from Rio.

To carry on, or not to carry on: that is the question now haunting Jessica Ennis-Hill. The woman who won gold in London 2012 and became a symbol of all that was glorious about the Games.

MARTHA KELNER: Jessica Ennis-Hill bowed out in her usual, understated fashion — posting a picture collage online showing the finest moments of what was a glittering career.

Jessica Ennis-Hill is set to be awarded her second World Championship heptathlon gold medal after the Court of Arbitration for Sport announced Russian athlete Tatyana Chernova will be stripped of her title.

It was Reggie's bath time when Ennis-Hill found out she would finally be awarded the 2011 world championship heptathlon title which was stolen from her by a Russian drugs cheat.

The 2012 Olympic champion was robbed of gold by drugs cheat Tatyana Chernova six years ago and learned on Wednesday that she will get her medal upgrade a week on Sunday.

United dithered over whether to pursue a deal for the Canadian youngster, who was playing for Vancouver Whitecaps at the time, with the youngster eventually signing for the Germans.

The centre-back has produced some impressive performances for the Championship side and was recommended to United by club legend Ryan Giggs, who has coached Rodon for Wales.

She was a symbol of 60s debauchery, remembers her biographer Douglas Thompson  

An adult party business called Exclusively Silks was launched at the property earlier this year, with events such as Naughty Burns Night' and 'Discovering Swinging'.

Traditional Sunday worship might be in decline but the number of people going to church regularly, worshipping where and when they choose, is rising

All it took was a flick of her whisk and we were hooked, remembers writer Stuart Heritage   

It wasn't my best couple of days. Having had my face-lift outed over pre-wedding drinks at the Saunton Sands Wellness Spa, I got back to my little hotel on Friday night to find...

Neighbour Steve Frankel said the enclave's peace and quiet has been shattered by the new arrivals. The area is known for ultra privacy and neighbours say they do not welcome the attention.

Steve Sidwell has revealed just how devastated his Chelsea team-mates were in September 2007 when Jose Mourinho told them he had been sacked. 

CHRIS FOY IN MIYAZAKI: The 21-year-old joined several of his team-mates for paddle-boarding, to continue this phase of tough training and valuable down-time.

Trevor Bayliss's plans of embarking on a freelance T20 coaching career at the end of his England reign have been put on hold by the breakdown of the Bangladesh Premier League .

For the last decade he has been savagely criticised as the No 10 - and he has had enough. 1970s legend JJ Williams to question him, saying Wales would not win the World Cup with Biggar at fly-half.

Bournemouth host Everton in today's Premier League clash at Dean Court. Sportsmail's Sam McEvoy will provide live coverage for Bournemouth vs Everton  including score, lineups and build-up.

Quique Sanchez Flores takes charge of his first game back as Watford manager after replacing Javi Gracia in the dugout. Sportsmail's SAM McEVOY will provide live coverage for the tie.

Justin Gaethje delivered the performance of his career to inflict a brutal beating on Tony Ferguson and set up a mouth-watering showdown with Khabib Nurmagomedov for the lightweight title. 

Ngannou stopped Jairzinho Rozenstruik in the opening stages of their three-round bout at UFC 249 in Jacksonville, Florida, putting himself well and truly in the mix for another title shot now.

The former Real Housewives of Orange County star and her husband, Botched doctor Terry Dubrow, own a lavish mansion in Southern California.

The headguards are off! YouTube sensations KSI and Logan Paul come face-to-face once more but this time in a pro-boxing fight in Los Angeles. Follow LIVE ACTION right here from Staples Center.

1. This is an Application seeking stay of operation of the Order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Central Commission") whereby the State Commission in Petition NO. 54 of 2017 has determined the completed capital cost of GVK's 540 MW power project located in Punjab as under:

S.No. Claimed by Recomm- Approved GVK ended by by the Ld. Joint PSERC* Auditor 1. Land 123.77 123.77 96.75 2. Preliminary Expenses 0.25 0.25 3. Boiler Turbine Generator 1050.22 1050.17 1050.17 Package including Engineering, Erection, Civil Works, Taxes and 4. Balance of Plant including 927.40 895.06 783.57 Engineering, Erection, Civil Works, Taxes and 5. Duties. Spares for BTG Package. 0.11 0.11 6. Non-EPC. 337.31 285.56 204.60 7. Start-Up Expenses 31.68 15.00 0 7. Power and Water for 32.57 32.57 32.10 Construction. 8. Consultancy and 54.13 11.03 Engineering charges 9. Pre-operative Expenses 186.55 126.56 74.04 10. Insurance 16.56 16.56 16.56 11. Capital Cost excluding 2760.55 - 2269.18 IDC & Financing Charges Page 2 of 98 IA NO. 136 OF 2020 IN APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2020 12. Interest During 1474.84 1455.77 777.50 Construction (IDC) 13. Financing Charges 31.99 31.99 11.69 14. Total Capital Cost 4267.38 4103.83 3058.37

1. The Appellant is a generator maintaining and operating two units of coal-fired thermal generation plants. For purposes of setting up the said units, the construction work started some time in 2011. It had entered into an arrangement with the second Respondent (Discom) for supply of electricity for purposes of start-up, its need continuing the first unit having been commissioned on 11.02.2014 followed by the second unit commissioned on 02.08.2015.

2. The Appellant was a consumer for start-up power for the period 01.09.2013 to 31.05.2015. By the billing raised for supply of such electricity in terms of the Supply Agreement dated 07.01.2013, the Respondent Discom treated it as a commercial consumer on the reasoning that it would fall in the residual category, referring in this context to the tariff schedule, in absence of any separate category for start-up power consumer being specified in tariff schedule.

1. Indian Railways, an establishment working under the control of the Central Government in terms of the Railways Act, 1989, has been constrained to come to this Tribunal by the present appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to assail the decision of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "TNERC" Appeal No. 188 of 2019 & IA No.980 of 2019 Page 2 of 9 or "State Commission") dated 25.03.2019 passed in Petition No. M.P. 4 of 2019, declining to entertain the request, inter-alia, for direction to the respondents - State Transmission and Distribution Companies - to process the application and grant non-discriminatory open access based on its claim of being a deemed licensee with certain other ancillary reliefs, the prime reason being that the State Commission was not satisfied with the "form" in which such petition had been presented.

Mr. Hemant Sahai Mr. Aditya K. Singh Ms. Anukriti Jain Ms. Molshree Bhatnagar Ms. Puja Priyadarshini Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. G. Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Ranjitha Ramachandran Ms. Poorva Saigal Ms. Anushree Bardhan Mr. Shubham Arya Ms. Tanya Sareen Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey for R-2 2 Original Petition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2019 Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Mr. Nishant for R-3 & 4 Mr. Brahmanandam (Rep.) for R-5 ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 2 OF 2019 SB Energy Solar Private Limited 1st Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset Area-8, Hospitality District, Aerocity, NH-8, Delhi - 110037. .... PETITIONER Versus

1. These Appeals are filed by the solar power plants challenging impugned order dated 05.10.2019 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as "APERC" or "State Commission"). The petitions pending before APERC was for 9 Appeal Nos. 368, 369, 370, 371, 372 & 373 of 2019 approval for procurement of power by Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited and Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, which are hereinafter referred to as "AP Discoms", at the tariff competitively determined.

1. The present Execution Petition is filed by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Page 1 of 25 EP No.09 of 2016 in A. No. 171 of 2012 Limited ("TPDDL/Petitioner") for execution of the Judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 171 of 2012. The said Appeal was filed by the Petitioner challenging the tariff order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Delhi Commission/Respondent") in Petition No. 05 of 2012 whereby, the true up of expenses of the Petitioner for FY 2010-11 and ARR for the Control Period FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 were determined. By the said judgment this Tribunal has inter-alia decided as under:-

1. The relevant Tariff Regulations - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms & Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Tariff Regulations 2014") - in so far as they govern the obligation of the procurer of electricity to pay to the generating company for the supply received do not define or specify the "due date" for such payment. The Regulations do make provision for incentive for timely payment, the rebate admissible being subject to gradual decrease over the period specified also specifying surcharge leviable for late payment. As is the usual practice in the power industry, the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) contain stipulation, inter-alia, for Letter of Credit (LC), the terms and conditions settled by the parties indicating the event on which such LC can be encashed. It is the contention of the Appellant (Distribution Licensee - Procurer) that the period specified in the Regulations for rebate to be availed by payment of the bill for supply of electricity should also be treated as the period within which such payment can be legitimately insisted upon, the end of the said period being "due date" prior to which the LC cannot be invoked. The PPA which was entered upon between the parties herein carries a stipulation that the payment of the periodic bill (raised on Appeal No. 26 of 2018 & IA No. 131 of 2018 Page 2 of 24 month-to-month basis) is to be made by the last bank working day of the month in which it is raised, described as the "due date". It is also the contention of the Appellant that this stipulation (as to due date) runs contrary to the Tariff Regulations providing for the incentive (rebate) for timely payment (within 30 days), and the liability for late payment surcharge (LPSC) and, consequently, the PPA will have to be enforced only after being aligned and brought in line with letter and spirit of the Regulations.

1. The present Appeal No. 340 of 2016 has been preferred by M/s. Azure Sunrise Private Limited (Appellant) against the Impugned Order Dated 14th December, 2016 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter the "State Commission") in Petition No. 19/ 2016 (hereinafter the "Petition"), wherein the State Commission has arbitrarily and unjustifiably retrospectively reduced the approved extension of time of 137 days granted by the distribution licensee, Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (hereinafter the "CESCOM") to only 25 days, after more than 12 months of such extension being granted and acted upon by both the parties and has further recorded that the necessary consequences as per the terms of the PPA (as defined hereinafter) shall follow.

1. The Appellant Company was established to execute what is known as Chennai Metro Rail Project ("CMRP"). On 15.02.2011, a Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") was entered into between the Government of India, Government of Tamil Nadu and Chennai Metro Rail Limited ("CMRL"), the Appellant herein, inter-alia, for the purposes of sharing the financial burden of setting up of CMRP, the objective whereof concededly was to provide reliable, faster, economical and eco- friendly public transport services in the city of Chennai, the project undertaken being similar to the projects that have come up in different metro-cities of India including Delhi and Bangalore.

1. The present appeal has been filed by Indian Captive Power Producers Association (ICPPA) (Appellant) against the daily order dated 01.02.2019 ("impugned order") passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Respondent Commission") in Petition No. 1672 of 2017, preferred by the Appellant. Vide the present appeal, the Appellant is seeking necessary directions for expediting the proceedings in Petition No. 1672 of 2017 preferred by the Appellant. Under the aforesaid Petition, the Appellant is seeking amendment of the provisions of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011 ("GERC OA Regulations, 2011") as detailed therein. However, even after a lapse of more than 2 years, the Respondent Commission has failed to hear the Petition on merits, thereby leading to a delay in deciding the said case.

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Swasti Power Limited ("Appellant") under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("Electricity Act"), challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission's ("State Commission / Respondent No.1") Order dated 21.10.2015 in Petition No. 08 of 2015 ("Impugned Order") whereby the State Commission despite coming to the conclusion that the Respondents are in breach of their obligations towards construction of 220/33KV sub-station at Ghansali or in strengthening/augmentation of the existing 33KV evacuation system had erroneously dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant while holding that there is no specific condition under the Power Wheeling Agreement dated 30.09.2005 and Power Purchase Agreement dated 03.07.2009 executed between the parties, under which the Appellant could be compensated for the loss of generation due to inactions of the Respondent No. 2 & 3.

2. The facts, which led to filing of this appeal, in brief, are as under:

Admittedly, the 2nd Respondent is the HT consumer of electricity having Contract Demand of 3500 KVA with the Appellant. It entered into an agreement on 10.10.2011 with the Appellant-Discom for supply of power in terms of above Contract of Demand.

3. Apparently, consumer company made an application for energy drawl from open access through IEX and it was considered as short term open access (STOA) consumer. Admittedly, in terms of Regulation 26(vii) of the RERC (Terms and conditions for Open access) Regulations 2016 (for short "Regulations of 2016"), every short term open access consumer shall provide the injection/drawl schedule (block- wise maximum power) for inter-State transactions every day to SLDC, RDPPC and the Distribution Licensee before 10:00 am of the day 3 preceding the day of drawl/injection as per the open access capacity sanctioned.

1. By this appeal, challenge has been brought to order dated 04.03.2015 of first Respondent i.e. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter variously referred to as "WBERC" or "State Commission") in case No. TP-55/13-14 thereby determining Multi Year Tariff (MYT) for the period beginning with financial year (FY) 2014-15 upto FY 2016-17 by which the appellant, representing a set of industrial consumers, claims to be adversely affected. The grievances of the Appellant relate to alleged inherent inconsistency in the approach on account of "excessive allowance of power purchase cost"; non-compliance of Tariff Regulations in matter relating to "Provisional Determination of Project Cost" of specific units; incorrect treatment of "non-tariff income"; and, erroneous "recurring" allowance of "interest on working capital loan" provided by Government of West Bengal without scrutiny as to delay in repayment.

Mr. Amit Kapur Ms. Poonam Verma Mr. Saunak Kumar Mr. Rajguru Mr. Sidhant Kaushik Ms. Aparajita Upadhyay Ms. Adhishree Chakraborty Ms. Sakshi Kapoor Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Ms. Abiha Zaidi for R-2 Order PER HON'BLE MR. S. D. DUBEY, TECHNICAL MEMBER IA No. 324 of 2020

1. The dismissal of the claim brought before the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission) under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for recovery of Rs. 76,61,606/- on account of "deemed generation" against the Respondent Discom, registered as case No. HERC/PRO-69 of 2017 "for want of prosecution" by order dated 16.01.2019, followed by dismissal of the prayer for Appeal No. 75 of 2020 Page 2 of 6 restoration of the said case by order dated 25.04.2019, has led to the present appeal being instituted before us.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on all sides and have gone through the record. We are of the view that the appeal must be allowed. We set out our reasons hereinafter.

1. Against the backdrop of validity of certain acts of the third Respondent (Procurer) encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee and terminating the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) being questioned by the Appellant (Developer), the issues of the propriety of the approach of Appeal No. 319 of 2019 & IA Nos. 1565, 1566 & 1915 of 2019 Page 2 of 37 the first Respondent - Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to variously as "UPERC" or "State Commission" or "Commission") - to the process of adjudication and the general expectation of its neutrality particularly at the stage of an appellate scrutiny of its decision by this Tribunal have come up for consideration in this appeal.

1. The brief facts that led to filing of the present appeal are as under:

3

In terms of guidelines issued by Ministry of Power (MoP) for determination of tariff by bidding process for procurement of power by distribution licensees, on 18.05.2009, Respondent No.3- MSEDCL issued a request for proposal for procurement of 2000 MW (+30%-20%) for a period of 25 years on long term basis. In that process, the following bidders were qualified:

i. Emco Energy Ltd. ( 200 MW @2.879 Rs/kWh) ii. Rattan India Power Ltd. (Amravati) ( 1200 MW @ 3.260 Rs/kWh) iii. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd (1200 MW @ 3.280 Rs/kWh) iv. Rattan India Power Ltd. (Nashik) (950 MW @ 3.450 Rs/kWh v. Wardha Power Company Ltd. (675 MW @ 3.620 Rs/kWh)

1. These two matters have come up against almost identical backdrop of proceedings recorded by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to variously as "TNERC" or "State Commission" or "Commission"), the Appellant in first captioned appeal being Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited, which was the petitioner in D.R.P. No. 19 of 2012, the second captioned appeal having been instituted by Samalpatti Power Company Private Limited, petitioner in D.R.P. No. 16 of 2012.

2. It appears that the said two petitions had come up for consideration before the State Commission around the same point of time, the hearing having been concluded, the orders having been reserved by similar proceedings recorded on 21.12.2018. Noticeably at that stage, the State Commission was functional in full strength with the Chairman and two Members in position. Before orders could be passed in either of the said matters, one of the members (Mr. G. Rajagopal) Appeal No. 127 of 2019 and Appeal No. 146 of 2019 Page 3 of 8 demitted office in January, 2019. Meanwhile, certain written submissions had been placed on record by the parties which were respondents before the State Commission (respondents in these appeals as well). Along with the said written submissions, certain documents were submitted to which exception was taken by the appellants primarily on the ground that it was new material, taking on board the same amounting to (as per their contention) amendment of the pleadings, it being statedly impermissible at the stage at which it had been tendered for record. Since the Registry of the Commission seems to have returned such material upon objections being taken, the respondents herein were constrained to file applications - i.e. IA No. 1 of 2019 in the first captioned matter and IA No. 2 of 2019 in the other matter.

1. This Appeal is filed by Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited challenging the impugned order dated 03.11.2017 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "APERC/Commission").

2. The brief facts which led to filing of the present Appeal are as under:

(i) 2nd Respondent - M/s SNJ Sugars & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd.

is a sugar plant with co-generation power plant having capacity of 20 MW. It uses bagasse as a fuel for power generation. It approached the Non-conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (known as "NEDCAP") for setting up of power plant and accordingly it got the approval on 07.04.2000.

1. The Appellant West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) has come up with the present appeal challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Central Commission) in Petition No. 298/MP/2018 which had been instituted by the Respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) seeking declaration as to right to recover a sum aggregating Rs.111,74,47,434 Crores towards principal and delayed payment surcharge at the rate of 1.5% per month as on 31.08.2019 along with further interest till payment. It appears that the Appellant had resisted the claim by raising the issue of limitation pleading that the Appeal No. 20 of 2020 Page 2 of 5 petition of DVC could not be entertained, it being time barred.

The couple shared the news to Instagram on Saturday, with the Man United captain, 27, captioning a sweet hospital snap: Welcome to this crazy world baby girl. Piper Rose Maguire'

The actress, 38, announced the news in a social media post on Saturday, and gushed she's 'overwhelmed with love' for the new arrival.