Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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