Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Late Payment Surcharge Claims Dismissed; Non-Meritorious Litigations Discouraged: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment on March 18, 2024, dismissed the application by Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL) seeking a Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) from Rajasthan Discoms under the Electricity Act, 2003. The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar emphasized the importance of discouraging repetitive and non-meritorious litigation by imposing costs on APRL.

The judgment addressed the legal point concerning the claim of LPS by APRL from Rajasthan Discoms, as per a Power Purchase Agreement dated 28.01.2010. The Court meticulously analyzed the interpretation of Article 8.3.5 of the PPA, especially in the light of the non-payment of LPS following a change in law clause.

APRL’s claim for Rs. 1376.35 crore as LPS was grounded in the alleged shortage of domestic coal, compelling the use of costlier imported coal. The company claimed this as a ‘change in law’ situation under the PPA, warranting compensation for additional costs incurred.

The Court’s detailed assessment included a review of the specific clauses of the PPA and their application to the case. Previous findings by RERC, APTEL, and the Supreme Court were taken into account. The Court observed, “In the event of delay in payment of a Monthly Bill by the Procurers beyond its Due Date, a Late Payment Surcharge shall be payable by such Procurers to the Seller at the rate of two percent (2%) in excess of the applicable SBAR per annum...” However, it was concluded that the LPS issue had been satisfactorily resolved in the previous judgment, and there were no grounds for a new review or reinterpretation.

The application filed by APRL seeking LPS was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on APRL to be remitted to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, underlining the intent to deter similar non-meritorious litigations.

Date of Decision: March 18, 2024

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr.

Latest Legal News