Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan 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.

Similar News