Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

High Court Directs Rigorous Probe into Allegations of Over-Invoicing in Power Projects by Top Corporates Adani and Essar

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant move towards ensuring transparency and accountability in the power sector, the High Court of Delhi has disposed of two public interest litigations (PILs), directing the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct meticulous and expeditious investigations into allegations of over-invoicing by major corporate groups in the power projects.

The PILs, filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others, highlighted concerns over alleged over-invoicing in coal imports and equipment by companies within the Adani and Essar Groups. These practices, the petitioners claimed, led to inflated power tariffs and the illegal siphoning of funds.

In their judgment, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “In the peculiar facts of these cases, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to meticulously and expeditiously look into the allegations of the petitioners to unearth the actual factual position and take appropriate actions against the erring companies, if any, as per law.” This directive underscores the court’s commitment to unearthing the truth and ensuring justice in the face of complex financial allegations.

The DRI and CBI have been actively Investigating these allegations, issuing several Show Cause Notices and seeking international assistance through Letters Rogatory. The involvement of multiple companies and the complexity of transactions across different jurisdictions have made the investigation challenging.

The Ministry of Power, in its response, stated that power tariffs are determined through transparent processes, unaffected by the alleged inflated costs of projects. However, the court’s directive highlights the need for a deeper investigation into these claims to safeguard public interest and consumer rights.

This decision marks a crucial step in addressing concerns over corporate governance and financial ethics in India’s power sector. The outcome of these investigations is eagerly awaited, as it could have significant implications for the industry and its regulatory framework.

With the High Court’s directive, the DRI and CBI are expected to intensify their investigative efforts, bringing clarity and justice to a matter of significant public concern.

Date of Decision: 19th December 2023

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION  AND ANR. VS  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

 

Latest Legal News