Litigant cannot continue to hitchhike on the same judgment by relying on the inherent power of this Court: Supreme Court on APRL’s plea
Case title – Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors Vs Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr
Case no. – MA Diary No. 21994 OF 2022 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8625-8626 OF 2019
Decision on – March 18th, 2024
Quoram – Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Sanjay Kumar
Facts of the case
Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL), applicant in the original suit, is a power generating company and the distribution licensees of State of Rajasthan, collectively referred to as Rajasthan Discoms. They had entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) under which APRL was to supply electricity to the Discoms.
The appeals arose out of a dispute involving certain additional payments claimed by the applicant as per the PPA-2010. The APRL postulated domestic coal as the primary source of energy, while imported coal was to be used as a backup option. But, 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 resultant losses by invoking the change in law clause of the PPA. The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) held that the applicant would be entitled to relief on account of change in law, but disallowed the claim of additional payment under the head of carrying cost.
The Parties, aggrieved by this decision, appealed before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The APTEL found that applicant’s claim based on “change in law” was valid and held that it was also entitled for payment towards applicable carrying cost. The Rajasthan Discoms contested this decision before the Apex Court. The 3-judge bench of the SC refused to interfere with the findings of APTEL and dismissed the appeals.
The applicant filed contempt proceedings against the Rajasthan Discoms alleging disobedience of the said judgment and order. The Coordinate Bench of SC dealt with the matter and eventually closed it.
The applicant, further, filed a miscellaneous application to direct the Rajasthan Discoms for making payment of Rs.1376.35 Crore towards Late Payment Surcharge (LPS), which was opposed by the Rajasthan Discoms on the grounds of maintainability.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Supreme Court deciding on the question of maintainability of the present miscellaneous application noted that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 do not permit a litigant to apply for modification of a judgment once a matter stands concluded. Hence, the bench held that the applicant cannot plead for further reliefs in the matter of LPS which was already adjudicated by the 3-judge bench.
The Court pointed out that the applicant had not applied for review of the main judgment. In the contempt action, it also failed to establish any willful disobedience of the main judgment and order on account of non-payment of LPS. Therefore, held that the applicant cannot continue to hitchhike on the same judgment by relying on the inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court.
The Applicant in the contempt action, raised an issue on the payment of LPS, but the Bench of this Court found that the same was not the subject in question and issued no direction in that regard. Despite that question being left open by the Contempt Court, this bench noted that a miscellaneous application is not the proper legal course to make such a demand on that count.
The Supreme Court, thereby, dismissed the present application and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on APRL for repeatedly contesting the matter before the Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K