Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

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.

Similar News