In the legal battle between Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) and Adani Power, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar has reserved its orders after hearing detailed arguments from both parties. The crux of the matter revolves around allegations by JVVNL that Adani Power filed an application before the Supreme Court despite a final judgment on the late payment surcharge issue.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing JVVNL, and senior advocate AM Singhvi, representing Adani Power, presented their arguments before the apex court. The court is now tasked with determining the maintainability of the application filed by Adani Power after a prior judgment had supposedly settled the late payment surcharge matter.

The controversy surrounding the case escalated when advocate Dave questioned the legitimacy of Adani Power's application, accusing the company of abusing its legal standing. Dave emphasized the professional expertise involved in the case, stating, "This isn’t a farmer moving court with a lack of knowledge about the law. This is Adani Power assisted by top solicitors and senior lawyers."

Dave urged the court not to permit this "abuse of power" and suggested that perjury proceedings should be initiated. He expressed concern about the increasing trend of litigation due to such practices and highlighted procedural irregularities in the case, questioning the registry's decision to allow the filing of the application.

The court, before reserving its orders, asked Singhvi if he would withdraw the application without seeking any liberty. Singhvi agreed to withdraw the application without seeking any additional concessions from the court. However, he clarified that his decision to withdraw should not be construed as an admission of wrongdoing on Adani Power's part.

During the proceedings, Dave alleged that Adani Power committed fraud in its filing, a claim that Singhvi vehemently opposed. Singhvi stated that he was willing to withdraw the application with the liberty to approach appropriate authorities, emphasizing that his client had paid the principal amount and interest as directed by the court.

The heart of the matter lies in Adani Power's miscellaneous application seeking a late payment surcharge despite, according to Dave, having already paid the directed amount. He characterized the application as mischievous and an attempt to evade a substantial financial obligation.

As the court grapples with the maintainability of the application and allegations of fraud, the dispute raises broader questions about the role of the registry in determining the admissibility of such applications. The court pondered whether it should leave such decisions entirely to the registry or retain the authority to decide what filings are permissible.

Case: Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited

Diary No. 21994-2022.