If Agreed Timelines Is Not Adhered To, We Will Simply Admit Appeal & Say Impugned Order Can Be Executed- SC While Adjourning Case Between GRIDCO & Vedanta
|While adjourning the case between GRIDCO and Vedanta, the Supreme Court remarked that if the agreed timelines are not adhered to, the Court would admit the appeal and say that the impugned order can be executed.
The Bench of Justice SK Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka observed-
"This is of course subject to the timelines agreed to before us i.e. half an hour for the appellant and fifteen minutes for the respondents. We made learned senior counsel for the appellant conscious that if this does not happens we will simply admit the appeal and say that the impugned order can be executed."
While pronouncing the order, the Court noted that the Registry had posted 50 matters before the Bench on November 29, 2022, and that it was not possible to take up the matter for final disposal but with necessary changes taking place.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the Appellant while Senior Advocate C.A. Sundram appeared for the Respondent before the Court.
The Court thus adjourned the matter to February 7, 2023.
In this case, the Appellant GRIDCO Ltd. is a wholly owned Company of the Government of Odisha and is carrying the functions of Bulk supply of electricity to four Distribution companies in the State of Odisha.
The appeal was filed before the Supreme Court under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and was directed against the final judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity by which the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant and upheld the order of Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission.
*Section 125 of the Act deals with an appeal to the Supreme Court - Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, may, file an appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908: Provided that the Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.*
The Appellant had submitted before the Court that the impugned judgment will result in unjust and undue enrichment of Vedanta by Rs. 448 Crore approximately (as claimed by the Respondent – Vedanta but disputed by GRIDCO) at the cost of the consumers of the State of Odisha who will have to bear the said burden.
Cause Title – GRIDCO Ltd. v. M/s. Vedanta Ltd. & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Order