sbpdcl

Transcription

sbpdcl

BEFORE
THE BIHAR ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Review Petition
On
Commission’s Tariff Order for FY 2015-16
dated 16th March 2015
South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited
SBPDCL Review Petition on Commission’s tariff order for FY 2015-16
BEFORE THE BIHAR ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, PATNA
IN THE MATTER OF:
Filing of the Review Petition on Commission’s tariff order for True-up for
FY 2013-14, Annual Performance Review (APR) for FY 2014-15, Revised
Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FY 2015-16 (order dated 16th
March 2015) under BERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of
Tariff) Regulations, 2007 along with the other guidelines and directions
issued by the BERC from time to time and under Section 45, 46, 47, 61,
62, 64 and 86 of The Electricity Act 2003 read with the relevant
guidelines.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOUTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED
(hereinafter referred to as "SBPDCL" or ‘’DISCOM’’ or ‘’Petitioner’’
which shall mean for the purpose of this petition the Licensee), having
its registered office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
The Petitioner respectfully submits as under: 1. The Petitioner is compelled to file this review petition in view of certain concerns and
grievances over the Hon’ble Commission’s order on distribution tariff for FY 2015-16 dated
16th March 2015, hereinafter referred to as Tariff Order for FY 2015-16
2. The Petitioner humbly submits that the concerns and grievances raised in this Petition have
significant financial impact on SBPDCL and therefore prays to the Hon’ble Commission to
address and resolve these at the earliest
3. The present petition has been filed on an independent basis by SBPDCL
4. This petition has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sections 61, 62 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 and has taken into consideration the Chapter 6 – Multi-Year Tariff of
the BERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations 2007
South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL)
Page 2
Prayers to the Commission:
The Petitioner respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Commission may:
a) Admit this petition
b) Examine the proposal submitted by the Petitioner in the enclosed petition for a
favorable dispensation
c) Pass separate order for the Petitioner against the present petition
d) Condone any inadvertent omissions/errors/shortcomings and permit BPDCL to
add/change/modify/alter this filing and make further submissions as may be required at a
future date
e) Pass such Order, as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and appropriate keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the case
Petitioner
Patna
Dated:
Page 3
Table of Contents
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
Points for Review before the Commission............................................................................. 5
Capital Expenditure ............................................................................................................... 5
Interest on Loans ................................................................................................................... 6
Depreciation .......................................................................................................................... 7
Employee Cost for FY 2015-16 .............................................................................................. 9
Return on Equity / Funding of Capital Expenditure Schemes.............................................. 9
Carrying / holding cost on past deficit / surplus ................................................................ 11
Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO)............................................................................... 11
Gap carry forward for FY 2014-15....................................................................................... 15
Time of Day (TOD) Tariff...................................................................................................... 16
Prayer to the Commission ................................................................................................... 17
List of Annexure
S. No.
1
Annexure
Copy of Government of Bihar Rajyadesh
Page 4
1.
Points for Review before the Commission
1.1 Capital Expenditure
Commission’s View:
1.1.1 The Commission observed that the Petitioner has considered the opening CWIP as on 1st
April 2013 at Rs.540.90 Crore as reflected in the audited annual accounts for FY 2013-14.
However, as per the audited annual accounts of the Petitioner for FY 2012-13, the closing
CWIP is at Rs.541.26 Crore. There is a difference of Rs.0.36 Crore in closing and opening
balance of CWIP of consecutive years despite accounts being audited.
1.1.2 The Commission also observed that as per the audited accounts the capitalization for FY 1314 is at Rs.105.95 Crore and grants at Rs.1163.66 Crore (Consumer contribution – Rs.25.88
Crore + Capital Reserve Rs.1137.78 Crore). The Commission has considered entire
capitalisation through grants as the grants are higher than the capitalisation based on
audited accounts in FY 2013-14.
Petitioner’s Submission:
1.1.3 The final transfer scheme (which is under process for approval of GOB) has been submitted
by M/s PFC Consulting Ltd. with the revised final opening balance sheet as on 1st Nov.2012.
The impact of the balances as per the provisional transfer scheme and the final transfer
scheme has been incorporated in the accounts of the current financial year. In view of the
fact that the opening balances are as of 1st November 2012, the previous year figures have
been restated to represent the true financial position of the company based on the final
transfer scheme.
1.1.4 The impact on restated/regrouped the previous year figure in some of the accounting head,
the previous year figure are varied from audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2013, that is the
reason differences of Rs.0.36 crore being seen in the opening balance as compared to
audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2013. So, for any purposes restated opening balance
should be considered.
1.1.5 Further, as noted below it is very clear that no capitalisation has been done out of Grant of
Rs.1163.66 Crore received during the financial year. Hence assumption of the commission
for entire capitalisation of Rs.105.95 crore through grants due to grant received during the
year are higher than capitalisation, is incorrect.
Page 5
Details of Grants towards Cost of Capital Assets Received during the year 2013-14
Grants Towards Cost of Capital Assets-BRGF
Grants Towards Cost of Capital Assets-RGGVY
Fund From RE Under Nabard Phase-VIII
Fund From RE Under Nabard Phase-XI
Total
5,52,88,00,000
5,52,69,34,510
1,87,10,040
30,33,88,544
11,37,78,33,094
1.1.6 The above details under projects of BRGF, RGGVY, Nabard Phase-VIII and Nabard Phase-XI
for which above grant has been received during the year, has not been completed yet. So,
Commission must consider a part of capitalisation through loan i.e. 5.30 crore (5%) through
loan and 100.65 crore (95%) through grant. Hence, consideration of entire capitalisation
through grant is incorrect.
1.1.7 The petitioner request hon’ble commission to consider the funding through loans.
1.2 Interest on Loans
1.2.1 The Commission has maintained its stand and not considered State Government Loans and
allowed loans pertaining to REC, PFC & ADB only. The Commission has opined that State
Government Loans are taken over by the Government as per the provisions of the Transfer
Scheme, 2012. It has reduced the Interest & Finance charges by IDC amount as the same is
added to additions to GFA. It has considered opening loans for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15
similar to that of closing of loans for FY 2012-13 approved in the order for truing up of FY
2012-13 and projected closing loans of FY 13-14 and as per available audited accounts. The
additions are taken as per approved in funding from loans for capitalization of that
particular year and repayments equal to that of depreciation for that year.
1.2.2 Commission has erred in consideration of addition to loan Rs. 5.30 crore as stated above in
point no.1.1. Hence, consideration of entire capitalisation through grant and disallowance
of interest on additional loan (i.e capitalisation through loan) is incorrect, resulting lower
approval of Net Revenue requirement by Rs.0.42 Crore.
1.2.3 The petitioner request hon’ble commission to consider interest on loans as above.
Page 6
1.3 Depreciation
1.3.1 The Commission while approving methodology adopted by the petitioner has calculated
average rate of depreciation by considering actual depreciation in FY 2013-14 and actual
average GFA taken from audited account. The depreciation rate thus calculated (4.59%) has
been applied for whole control period on GFA and Net Grant for calculating net
depreciation.
1.3.2 Rate of depreciation considered for assets created out of grants: The Commission has
considered the rate of depreciation of 4.59% without giving any rational to the same.
SBPDCL in its petition has considered the rate of depreciation on the assets created from
grants as per the audited accounts. The Commission has ignored the audited accounts and
considered an arbitrary number of 4.59%. It is further substantiated from the notes to
accounts at S. No C where it is specifically mentioned as follows:
“In accordance with Accounting Standard 12 on ‘Accounting for Government Grants’
notified under the Companies Act 1956, Grants and Subsidies received from
Government are recognized as reasonable certainty of its realisability.
Grant and Subsides received for the specific asset are disclosed as Grant on Liabilities
side and amortization in proportion of depreciation every year for depreciable assets
acquired…..”
1.3.3 Accordingly the Commission should have considered the rate of depreciation on assets
created from grant in accordance with the audited accounts. As the rate of depreciation
considered by the Commission has been carried forward in FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 the
effect has cascaded and resulted in lower approval.
1.3.4 The methodology adopted for calculation of depreciation for determining the average rate
@ 4.59% should also be applied uniformly while calculating the proportion of grant for
deriving net depreciation as stated below:
Page 7
Sl.
No.
Particulars
Gross Block of
Grant
Accumulated
Depreciation
of Grant
11,60,83,16,964
10,21,13,926
11,50,62,03,038
Net Block of Grant
1
Opening Grant
2
Less: Opening Grant for Land
1,27,312
-
1,27,312
3
Less: Opening Grant for CWIP
6,28,47,60,096
-
6,28,47,60,096
4
Less: Opening Grant
Consumer Contribution
67,95,00,181
-
67,95,00,181
10,21,13,926
4,54,18,15,449
-
11,63,66,17,755
5
6
-
Opening Grant for GFA
4,64,39,29,375
(depreciable) [1-2-3-4]
Addition during the year
11,63,66,17,755
7
Less: Addition in Grant for
Land
-
-
-
8
Less: Addition in Grant for
11,37,78,33,094
CWIP
-
11,37,78,33,094
25,87,84,661
-
25,87,84,661
4,64,39,29,375
10,21,13,926
4,54,18,15,449
9
10
Less: Addition in Grant Consumer Contribution
Closing Grant for GFA
(depreciable)[5+6-7-8-9]
11
Average Grant for GFA
(depreciable) [(5+10)/2]
13
Depreciation
on
created out of grants
14
assets
Net Depreciation on assets
(Rs.116.80 Cr-21.32 Cr)
4,64,39,29,375
12,69,27,138
104,19,68,300
1.3.5 Hence consideration by BERC, Net Depreciation on assets at Rs.31.01 Crore instead of
Rs.104.20 Crore as calculated above is incorrect. Hence, Net Revenue requirement has been
understated by Rs.73.19 Crore incorrectly.
1.3.6 Similar disparity is seen in the calculation of FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 resulting in lower
depreciation.
1.3.7 The Petitioner request commission to consider the depreciation as per audited accounts
for FY 2013 – 14 and projections for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 based on audited accounts
of FY 2013-14
Page 8
1.4 Employee Cost for FY 2015-16
1.4.1 The Commission at Table 5.47 of the order has approved total employee cost of Rs.258.05
Crores for the FY 2014-15 However, while calculating the employee cost for FY 2015-16 at
table 6.46 the Commission has considered employee cost for FY 2014-15 at Rs.253.05
crores. The Commission has erred in calculating the Employee cost for FY 2015-16 resulting
in a lower approval of Rs.5.41 Crores. Accordingly total estimated employees cost for FY
2015-16 has been approved by the commission at Rs.278.90 Crore instead of Rs.284.31
Crore is incorrect.
Particulars
BERC Approved for
FY 2015-16
Calculation for FY
2015-16
Employee cost considered for FY 2014-15 (RE)
253.05
258.05
Add: Inflationary increase @ 8.24%
20.85
21.26
5
5
278.90
284.31
Add: New Manpower cost
Total Employee Cost.
1.4.2 The Petitioner request the Commission to consider the approved total employee cost of
Rs.258.05 Crores for the FY 2014-15 while calculating the employee cost for FY 2015-16.
1.5 Return on Equity / Funding of Capital Expenditure Schemes
1.5.1 The Commission has noted that no details were furnished for the equity amount. Opening
equity has been considered as on 1st April 2013 as per true up for FY 2013-14 and @30%
of capitalisation (net of grants) in respect of projected investment capitalised for FY 201314. As per the audited accounts, the investment capitalised is at Rs.105.95 Crore and the
grants received is at Rs.1163.66 Crore (Rs.25.88 Crore in consumer contribution +
Rs.1137.78 Crore capital reserve). As grants are higher than the investment capitalised in
FY 2013-14, hence, no equity addition has been considered in FY 2013-14. Funding of
capitalization through Grants was taken at 94% (Rs.756.97 Crore) and balance through
Loans at 6% (Rs.48.32 Crore) for FY 2014-15 based on projections made by the Petitioner
for review. Hence no equity is considered for FY 2014-15 (RE).
Page 9
1.5.2 After unbundling of BSEB, SBPDCL was formed under Companies Act, 1956. The state govt
has been providing funds for development of infrastructure of the company. Energy
Department, Govt of Bihar in its Rajyadesh No. 2175 dated 30/06/14 (copy enclosed Annexure 1) has clearly stated as under;
सरकार
“अतः
यथा
के
पॉवर (
) कंपनी
पॉवर जेनरे शन कंपनी
,
एवं साउथ
करायी
पॉवर
को अंश पूंजी के
के
पॉवर
,
कंपनी
पॉवर
,
कंपनी
पांच
को
कंपनी
योजना के
कराने
जाती है |”
1.5.3 BERC Tariff Regulations 2007
The Commission while disallowing the opening equity as per the audited accounts at Para
4.25 of the Tariff order which is reproduced below:
“The Commission has examined the computation of RoE claim of SBPDCL. The Petitioner has
computed RoE on the enhanced Equity. However, no details were furnished for the equity
amount.”
Further the Commission has referred the regulation 84 of the BERC (Terms and Condition
for determination of Tariff) Regulation 2007 which only excludes revaluation of reserves
and subsidies.
It is pertinent to mention here that the equity as per the audited accounts is 621.53 Crores.
SBPDCL has clarified the consideration of enhance equity along with letter issued by the
state government. The reply of the petitioner is as below:
“SBPDCL was initially infused equity capital of Rs.494 Crores as per the provisional transfer
scheme issued by the state government subsequently the state government converted
Rs.127.53 Crores of loan given to the company during 2012-13 into equity. As such the total
equity amount increased to Rs.621.53 (494+127.53 Crores).
Page 10
1.5.4 The impact on restated/regrouped the previous year figure in some of the accounting
head, the previous year figure are varied from audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2013,
that is the reason differences of Rs.1478.84 crore is being seen in the opening balance as
compared to audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2013.
1.5.5 It may be seen from the above that the infusion of equity is not revaluation of reserves.
Hence the Commission has erred on the face of record in acknowledging the opening
equity. The Impact of lower approval for the FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 is
Rs.53.55 Crores
1.6 Carrying / holding cost on past deficit / surplus
1.6.1 The Commission based on true-up for FY 2013-14 has arrived at the consolidated Revenue
gap of Rs. 307.67 Crores (NBPDCL Rs. 101.64 Cr. and SBPDCL Rs. 206.03 Cr.).
The Commission having adjusted the aforesaid consolidated Revenue gap of Rs.
307.67 Crore for FY 2013-14 from the consolidated surplus available upto FY 2012-13 has
wrongly arrived at a net surplus at the end of FY 2013-14 as Rs. 642.92 Crore wherein
carrying cost for one & half year has been considered. Such surplus with impugned carrying
cost has been adjusted from the ARR of FY 2015-16 resulting into under approval of the ARR
for FY 2015-16 to the tune of Rs. 38.83 Crore.
As the surplus upto FY 2013-14 in itself has been adjusted from ARR of FY 2015-16,
accordingly tariff for FY 2015-16 has been designed with such adjusted ARR which would be
realized during 12 months of 2015-16 and in such situation no further surplus would be
available in the beginning of FY 2015-16 for qualifying for carrying cost during FY 2015-16.
Had the surplus not been adjusted in ARR FY for 2015-16, then consideration of such
carrying cost for FY 2015-16 would have been right approach which is not in the instant
case.
1.6.2. The petitioner request the Hon’ble Commission not to consider carrying cost for 6 months
of FY 2015-16 on surplus of Rs. 526.44 Cr.
1.7
Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO)
1.7.1 The Commission has calculated Rs.32.70 Crore as a cost of non-compliance of Solar and
Non-Solar RPO in FY 2013-14 by SBPDCL. The cost of non-compliance will be factored in ARR
of FY 2015-16. This amount shall also be used with the approval of the Commission for
Page 11
meeting the cost of evacuation and transmission to the nearest interconnection point of the
grid of power generated from renewable energy projects which are not covered under
clause 4.2.3 of Bihar Policy for Promotion of New and Renewable Energy Sources, 2011.
1.7.2 The Commission has also factored Rs.21.08 Crore corresponding to RPO shortfall in FY 201011 to FY 2011-12 in the ARR for FY 2014-15 and directed the DISCOMs to deposit the same
in to a separate fund with a bank. The amount of Rs.21.08 Crore has been allocated among
the DISCOMs in their power purchase sharing ratio amounting to Rs.7.38 Crore for NBPDCL
and Rs.13.70 Crore for SBPDCL. This amount shall also be used with the approval of the
Commission for meeting the cost of evacuation and transmission to the nearest
interconnection point of the grid of power generated from renewable energy projects
which are not covered under clause 4.2.3 of Bihar Policy for Promotion of New and
Renewable Energy Sources, 2011. However the Commission while approving ARR of FY
2014-15 hasn’t considered this cost.
1.7.3 The commission has erred in calculating losses resulting in increased total cost of REC
certificate by Rs.4.30 Crores. The present cost of REC certificates as per commission’s
calculation is Rs.32.70 Crores whereas it should be Rs.28.40 Crores. The revised calculation
has been shown in below table:
Sl. No
Particulars
1
Solar purchase
2
Non-solar purchase
Commission’s
Approved
Quantity
Purchased (MU)
Revised
Calculation as
per Petitioner
0
0
a. a. co-generation
80.09
80.09
b. b. Small Hydro (BSHPC)
26.59
26.59
3
Total purchase from non solar (a+b)
106.68
106.68
4
Total purchase (Solar +Non-solar)
106.68
106.68
5
Total energy purchase
9,266.43
9,266.43
6
Losses
1423.72
1690.99
7
Disallowed power + sale of surplus power (UI)
3,094.03
3,094.03
8
Energy consumption (5-6-7)
4,748.68
4481.41
Page 12
Sl. No
Particulars
Commission’s
Approved
Quantity
Purchased (MU)
Revised
Calculation as
per Petitioner
9
Total RPO requirement (4.50%)
213.69
201.66
10
Solar RPO requirement (0.50%)
23.74
22.41
11
Non-solar RPO requirement (4.00%)
189.95
179.26
12
Captive consumption of RE generators (non-solar)
25.92
25.92
13
Shortfall in solar RPO (10-1)
23.74
22.41
14
Shortfall in non-solar RPO (11-3-12)
57.35
46.66
15
Forbearance price of solar REC (Rs /KwH)
5.80
5.80
16
Forbearance price of non solar REC (Rs /KwH)
3.30
3.30
17
Cost of solar REC
13.77
13.00
18
Cost of non-solar REC
18.93
15.40
19
Total cost of certificate
32.70
28.40
In table 4.12: Energy Balance approved by Commission for FY 2013-14, the distribution losses figure
is not correct, it should be 1305. 14 instead of 1037.87 (5674.53 – 4369.39).
The revised calculation for total losses is given below:
Sl.
No
Particulars
A
Energy Requirement
1
Total Energy sales
2
Approved in
truing-up for FY
2013-14
Proposed Revised
Calculation
4636.66
4636.66
Less: Energy supplied to DF area
112.01
112.01
3
Less: Sales outside state (UI etc.)
155.26
155.26
4
Net energy sales
4369.39
4369.39
5
Distribution Losses (%)
23.00%
23.00%
6
Distribution Losses (MU)
1037.87
1305.14
7
Energy required (4+6)
5674.53
5674.53
8
Add: 33 kV Distribution losses @ 6% on Energy input to DF
7.15
7.15
9
Transmission Loss (MU)
242.66
242.66
10
Regional transmission loss (MU)
136.04
136.04
11
Total Losses (6 + 8 + 9 + 10)
1,423.72
1,690.99
Page 13
1.7.4 The petitioner request Hon’ble commission to consider Rs.28.40 Crores instead of Rs.32.70
Crores as total cost of REC certificate as per revised calculations submitted above.
Page 14
1.8 Gap carry forward for FY 2014-15
1.8.1 The Commission approves the net revenue gap of Rs.326.76 Crore for FY 2014-15 (RE)
subject to final truing up as and when the audited annual accounts for FY 2014- 15 are
submitted by the Petitioner.
1.8.2 The gap estimated by the Commission is based on the revised estimates submitted by
SBPDCL as modified by the Commission on prudence check and may vary with actual
costs/expenditure based on the audited annual accounts for FY 2014-15.
1.8.3 Therefore, the Commission does not consider this gap of Rs.326.76 Crore to be carried
forward in ARR of SBPDCL for FY 2015-16.
1.8.4 Regulation 22 of BERC (Terms and Conditions for determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2007
envisages adjustment of revenue gap / surplus on account of revised estimate in the
revenue gap of the ensuing year. The same is represented below :“22. Review and Truing up
(1) The Commission shall undertake a review along with next Tariff Order, of the expenses
and revenues approved by the Commission in the current year Tariff Order. While doing so,
the Commission shall consider variations between approvals and revised estimates / preactuals of the sale of electricity, income and expenditure for the relevant year and permit
necessary adjustments / changes in case such variations are for adequate and justifiable
reasons. Such an exercise shall be called ‘Review’.
(2) After audited accounts of the year are made available, the Commission shall undertake a
similar exercise as in sub-clause (1) above based on the final actual figures as per the
audited accounts. This exercise based on the audited accounts shall be called ‘Truing up’.
The truing up exercise for any year shall not ordinarily be considered after more than one
year gap after ‘Review’.
(3) The Revenue gap of next year shall be adjusted as a result of Review and Truing up
exercises.
(4) While approving adjustments towards revenue / expenses in future years, arising out of
Review / Truing up exercises, the Commission may allow the carrying costs as determined by
the Commission of such expenses / revenues, Carrying costs shall be limited to the interest
rate approved for working capital borrowings.
Page 15
(5) For any revision of approvals, the licensee shall satisfy the Commission that the revision
is necessary for the reasons beyond its control. In case additional supply is required to be
made to any particular category, the licensee may, at any time during the year, make an
application to the Commission for its approval, duly explaining the need for such change B-7
of consumer mix and additional supply of power and also indicating the manner in which the
licensee proposes to meet the cost for such change of consumer mix and additional supply of
power.
The Commission may consider according approval to such proposals provided the cost of
additional supply of power is met by the beneficiary category.”
1.8.5 Non – consideration of net revenue gap of Rs.326.76 for 2014-15 duly approved by the
Commission in ARR for FY 2015-16 is in violation of the Regulation.
1.8.6 This will lead to crunch of financial requirements of SBPDCL for FY 2014-15 and hamper our
ability to meet obligations fully.
1.8.7 The petitioner requests Hon’ble commission to consider the net revenue gap of Rs.326.76
for FY 2014-15 (RE) to be carried forward in ARR of SBPDCL for FY 2015-16 as we believe
that this is not as per prevailing regulations in states of India.
1.9
Time of Day (TOD) Tariff
1.9.1 Time of Day (TOD) tariff which was mandatory for a contract demand of 200 KVA and above
to HT consumers has now been made mandatory to all HT consumers.
1.9.2 We request hon’ble commission to keep it optional for this year or should be made
effective / applicable from 1st September 2015 and provide us meanwhile time to upgrade
meters with TOD software as all HT consumer meters are not installed with TOD software.
1.9.3 Also as no prior consideration with petitioner or prior proposal had been called from
petitioner before issuing the order, assessment of preparedness of petitioner to comply
with this order had also not been checked prior to issuing this order. Therefore, petitioner
humbly request Hon’ble commission to provide suitable time or keep this order optional for
this year.
Page 16
1.10 Prayer to the Commission
1.10.1 The Petitioner respectfully prays to the Commission to allow:
i.
Admit this petition
ii.
Examine the proposal submitted by the Petitioner in the enclosed petition for a
favorable dispensation
iii.
Pass separate order for the Petitioner against the present petition
iv.
Condone any inadvertent omissions/errors/shortcomings and permit SBPDCL to
add/change/modify/alter this filing and make further submissions as may be
required at a future date
v.
Pass such Order, as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and appropriate keeping
in view the facts and circumstances of the case
Petitioner
Patna
Dated:
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19

sbpdcl

Transcription

Similar documents

Om Shanti Om Tashan PERFECT SCRIPT FOR ACTORS Rs5crore

JOINT PETITION FOR DIVORCE PURSUANT TO G.L. c. 208, §... Commonwealth of Massachusetts The Trial Court Probate and Family Court Department

4405/2014 COL. DEVENDER SINGH SOLANKI (RETD

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Unstarred Ques No. 1330 dated 10.03.2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru dated this the 26th day of

Withdrawal of Funds from a Blocked Account, MC-357

For court use only

PETITION FOR GRANT OF LETTERS