The singer, 27, looked stunning in a Fendi black tulle gown, which was fitted around her midriff before fanning out into a dramatic skirt.

Lizzo pulled out all the stops as she took to the stage for the Brit Awards at the O2 Arena on Tuesday night.

The singer, 31, ensured all eyes were on her as she arrived on the red carpet at the BRIT Awards at The 02 Arena in London on Thursday.

The model, 19, wowed in a black cut-out caged gown with metallic button detailing on it.

The singer, 33, certainly ensured all eyes were on her as she hit the red carpet in the boldest look of the night at the 2020 BRIT Awards at London's O2 Arena on Tuesday evening.

The singer, 22, looked radiant as ever as she walked the red carpet at this year's BRIT Awards at The 02 Arena in London on Tuesday.

The former The Saturdays singer, 32, added fashionista to her credentials as she stepped out at the 2020 BRIT Awards at London's O2 Arena on Tuesday evening.

The presenter looked stunning in a sweeping black gown as she made her way into London's O2 Arena ahead of the star-studded ceremony.

The Pussycat Dolls singer, 38, flashed her sizzling washboard abs in a tiny dazzling crop top, which she teamed with a matching floor-length skirt.

The Mummy Diaries star, 29, put on an extremely busty display in a plunging black silk gown with a thigh-high split as she exited the bash at the InterContinental Hotel in London.

Montana Brown looked incredible as she and Amber Davies led the Love Island stars on the 2020 BRIT awards red carpet on Tuesday night.

The Love Island star, 23, struck confident poses while wowing in a sparkling strapless gown with dramatic ruffled detailing up the thigh slit as she left the O2 Intercontinental Hotel

Among some of the boldest outfits this evening was singing sensation Lizzo, who donned an Hershey's chocolate inspired gown and could be seen posing for a bite of her bag.

The outlandish singer commanded attention in a distinctive Burberry ensemble as she waled the red carpet alongside older brother and songwriting partner Finneas O'Connell.

The rapper, who won Male Solo Artist, 26, couldn't resists taking the opportunity to gush over the teen singer, 18, who won International Female Solo Artist

The model, 34, put on a very leggy display in a perilously short black mini dress with daring thigh-high slits on the side.

There's no rest for the wicked and a host of radio personalities were up bright and early on Wednesday morning after the BRIT Awards 2020.

The singer showed off her incredible figure in a racy black latex dress from Galvan London as she partied the night away. 

Lewis Capaldi, Stormzy and Billie Eilish led the winners on Tuesday evening in a largely male dominated BRIT Awards shortlist.

The singer, 46, channeled Posh Spice as she joined the slew of stars on the BRIT Awards red carpet at The O2 Arena on Tuesday.

The Dickinson actress, 23, looked radiant as ever as she arrived on the red carpet at the BRIT Awards at The 02 Arena in London on Tuesday

The Inbetweeners star, 30, mingled with the great and good of the music world as she attended the 2020 BRIT Awards at London's O2 Arena on Tuesday night.

She's long been celebrated as one of the world's top supermodels, as she enters her fifth decade of working as one of fashion's most celebrated figures.

Anne-Marie certainly didn't disappoint when she graced the red carpet at London's O2 Arena on Tuesday night for the BRIT Awards 2020.

Dave and Jorja Smith attended the BRIT Awards Beats By Dr Dre after party at The Scotch of St James on Tuesday night.

Jack Whitehall, Paloma Faith (main) and Stormzy (right) all said their bit on the sexism row at this year's BRIT awards after nominations saw just four female nominees in the non-gendered categories.

The presenter was a no-show when his show came on air at 6:30am, leaving his collegaue Adele Roberts to take over, after presenting her own early show from 4am.

The Love Me Like You Do hitmaker, 33, posted several fun updates to her Instagram Stories on Tuesday night as she enjoyed an espresso martini.

She scooped up Best International Female Artist at Tuesday night's Brit Awards and the 18-year-old was keen to celebrate her win

The singer, 23, displayed her daring sense of style as she attended the BRIT Awards afterparty at the InterContinental Hotel in London on Tuesday

She was among the audience members when her ex-boyfriend Stormzy triumphed at the 2020 BRIT Awards on Tuesday night.

Lizzo, 31, looked sensational in a sheer dress over a racy corset for her afterparty look, emerging from The Box after a night of party hopping.

Maya Jama partied up a storm at the Warner music afterparty at the Chiltern Firehouse on Tuesday night,  where her ex, Stormzy was also in attendance. 

The Telluride is an eight-seat SUV that's broadly based on Kia's smaller Sorento - but is only sold in the US and is not planned for UK showrooms any time soon.

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.