Supreme Court Dismisses Adani Power's Application for Late Payment Surcharge.
18 March 2024
Business Laws >> Business & Commercial Law
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an application by Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL) seeking a Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) of Rs. 1376.35 crore from Rajasthan Discoms. The court's decision hinged on the maintainability of the application, essentially stating it was filed through the wrong channel and after the appropriate timeframe.
Court's Jurisdiction and Proper Procedures:
The crux of the issue lies in the court's jurisdiction. Once a final judgement is delivered, the Supreme Court loses the authority to revisit the case (becomes "functus officio"). The court entertains post-disposal applications only in exceptional circumstances, such as rectifying clerical errors or unforeseen situations rendering the original judgement impractical. Adani Power's application, however, didn't qualify under these exceptions.
Alternative Avenues Overlooked:
The court highlighted that Adani Power had other legal options to contest the original judgement on LPS. They could have filed a review petition or a curative petition, which are the designated procedures for challenging judgements in the Supreme Court. By not utilizing these established channels, Adani Power's application was deemed procedurally flawed.
Contempt Proceedings Not the Answer:
The case reveals another interesting aspect. Adani Power had previously initiated contempt proceedings against Rajasthan Discoms for non-compliance with the judgement. While the LPS issue was raised in those proceedings, the court clarified it wasn't the core issue being addressed.
Previous Observations Not Binding:
A prior order by the Supreme Court mentioned Adani Power might be entitled to LPS. However, the court clarified that these observations were preliminary and didn't address the critical question of maintainability, which ultimately led to the application's dismissal.
Conclusion:
Due to the application's shortcomings and repeated hearings, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on Adani Power. This serves as a reminder to parties involved in legal disputes to follow established procedures for challenging judgements.
This case underscores the importance of proper legal channels and respecting the court's jurisdiction. It also highlights the existence of alternative avenues for parties to address grievances arising from judgements.