Litigant Cannot Continue To Hitchhike On Same Judgment By Relying On Inherent Powers Of The Court: SC Imposes 50K Costs On Adani Power Rajasthan Limited
The Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs. 50k on Adani Power Rajasthan Limited observing that a litigant cannot continue to hitchhike on the same judgment by relying on the inherent power or jurisdiction of the Court.
The Court dismissed the Adani Power Rajasthan Limited’s (APRL) miscellaneous application seeking relief on the Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) issue, holding that such a demand could not be made through a miscellaneous application and that the matter had already been addressed in previous judgments.
The Court clarified that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 do not permit a litigant to apply for modification of a judgment once a matter stands concluded.
Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “The maintainability of the present application cannot be explained by invoking the inherent power of this Court either. The applicant has not applied for review of the main judgment. In the contempt action, it failed to establish any willful disobedience of the main judgment and order on account of non-payment of LPS. Now the applicant cannot continue to hitchhike on the same judgment by relying on the inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court.”
Sr. Advocate Dushyant Dave represented the appellants, while Sr. Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the respondents.
Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL), a power generating company and the distribution licensees of Rajasthan, collectively referred to as Rajasthan Discoms had entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) under which APRL was to supply electricity to the Discoms.
Due to insufficient domestic coal allocation by the Government of India, APRL resorted to importing coal from Indonesia, resulting in higher costs. APRL sought compensation for the resulting losses under the change in law clause of the PPA. The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) granted the relief to APRL.
Additionally, APRL had claimed carrying costs before the RERC, which were not allowed. However, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) allowed payment towards applicable carrying costs as well.
The Rajasthan Discoms appealed against APTEL's decision before the Supreme Court, which upheld APTEL's findings regarding relief for change in law. The Court also addressed the liability of the Rajasthan Discoms for late payment surcharge as per the terms of the PPA.
APRL subsequently filed contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment. The contempt petitions were eventually closed, with the Court leaving open the question of late payment surcharge (LPS). Simultaneously, a miscellaneous application was filed seeking directions on payment of late payment surcharge, which was opposed by the Rajasthan Discoms on the grounds of maintainability.
The Court observed that “despite that question being left open by the Contempt Court, we are of the view that a miscellaneous application is not the proper legal course to make demand on that count. A relief of this nature cannot be asked for in a miscellaneous application which was described in the course of hearing as an application for clarification.”
The Court further held that “this Court has become functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an application after the appeal was disposed of by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court on 31.08.2020 through a course beyond that specified in the statute.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on APRL and dismissed their application.
Cause Title: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 213)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Sr Advocate Dushyant Dave; Advocates Kartik Seth, Prashanth R. Dixit, Abhishek Kandwal, Mahesh Bhati and Saurabh Chaturvedi
Respondents: Sr Advocate A.M. Singhvi; AOR E. C. Agrawala; Advocates Mahesh Agarwal, Poonam Sengupta, Arshit Anand, Shashwat Singh, Sakshi Kapoor, Saunak Rajguru and Sidharth Seem
