A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case centers on the extent to which the Supreme Court can entertain post-disposal applications for modification or clarification of a judgment that has attained finality. The applicants sought directions to enforce payment obligations under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The core issue involved the jurisdictional limits of the Supreme Court under inherent powers post-disposal of statutory appeals. The Court held that post-disposal applications for modifications are impermissible except in rare cases involving executory orders where subsequent events make implementation impossible. The Court dismissed the application as it did not fall under these exceptions and imposed costs for filing such applications unnecessarily.

Keywords: Miscellaneous Application, Late Payment Surcharge (LPS), Power Purchase Agreement, Supreme Court Inherent Powers, Post-Disposal Jurisdiction

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr.

ii) Case Number
Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 21994 of 2022
In Civil Appeal Nos. 8625-8626 of 2019

iii) Judgement Date
18 March 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar

vi) Author
Justice Aniruddha Bose

vii) Citation
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1023 : 2024 INSC 213

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Order XII, Rule 3; Order XLVII; Order XLVIII
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 148, 152, 112

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None

x) Case is Related to
Constitutional Law, Energy Regulation, Commercial Law, and Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arose under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA-2010) between Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL) and Rajasthan Discoms. APRL claimed compensation and late payment surcharges citing change-in-law provisions and delays in payments under the PPA. The case raised significant jurisdictional questions about the Supreme Court’s post-disposal authority, culminating in this application for further directions after statutory appeals were disposed of.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. APRL, under the PPA-2010, agreed to supply electricity using domestic coal as the primary fuel.
2. Due to non-availability of domestic coal, APRL relied on more expensive imported coal, invoking change-in-law clauses for compensation.
3. The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) recognized the claim for change-in-law compensation but rejected APRL’s request for carrying costs.
4. Appeals were filed before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which upheld the change-in-law claim and awarded carrying costs.
5. Rajasthan Discoms challenged APTEL’s decision before the Supreme Court, which dismissed their appeals on 31 August 2020.
6. APRL subsequently filed contempt proceedings, alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment, particularly concerning Late Payment Surcharge (LPS).

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Maintainability: Can a post-disposal miscellaneous application seek modification or clarification of a Supreme Court judgment?
2. Jurisdiction: Does the Supreme Court retain jurisdiction to entertain such applications under inherent powers?
3. Late Payment Surcharge (LPS): Was APRL entitled to additional payments under the PPA and Supreme Court’s judgment?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• Non-Compliance Allegations: APRL argued that Rajasthan Discoms failed to comply with the judgment’s financial directions.
• LPS Entitlement: APRL claimed LPS amounting to ₹1376.35 crore as per Article 8.3.5 of the PPA.
• Need for Directions: APRL sought clarification on its LPS claim, arguing the Supreme Court’s prior judgment supported such relief.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• Jurisdictional Challenge: Rajasthan Discoms contended that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application.
• Abuse of Process: They argued the application was a disguised review attempt, barred under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
• Compliance Achieved: Respondents maintained they complied with the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment and made requisite payments.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

• The Supreme Court held that post-disposal applications for modification or clarification of judgments are impermissible unless involving clerical errors or executory orders rendered impossible to implement due to subsequent events.
• The application did not meet these criteria and was dismissed as an abuse of process.

b. OBITER DICTA

• The Court deprecated the growing trend of seeking indirect reviews through miscellaneous applications, citing misuse of judicial resources.

c. GUIDELINES

• Applications for post-disposal clarifications or modifications must satisfy the rare exception of executory impossibility due to subsequent events.
• Costs will be imposed for frivolous applications to deter abuse of process.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment reinforces the principle of finality in judicial decisions and limits the use of inherent powers for post-disposal applications. It ensures that statutory mechanisms for review or curative petitions remain the only routes for revisiting judgments.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, (2023) 10 SCC 817
2. Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, [2021] 13 SCR 738
3. State (UT of Delhi) v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC 296

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Supreme Court Rules, 2013
2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908