JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.

                 [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1023 : 2024 INSC 213

               Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
                                  v.
                 Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr.
           Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 21994 of 2022
                                   In
                   Civil Appeal Nos. 8625 – 8626 of 2019
                                 18 March 2024
             [Aniruddha Bose* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       When can a litigant apply for modification of a judgment or an
       order in a matter which stands finally concluded; and can a party
       file an application after disposal of the statutory appeal by invoking
       inherent powers of the Supreme Court.

                                   Headnotes
       SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 - Order XII, Rule 3 – Scope
       thereof, explained – Filing of applications after disposal of
       the statutory appeal:
       Held: Impermissible – A post disposal application for modification
       and clarification of an order shall lie only in rare cases, where the
       order passed by the Supreme Court is executory in nature and
       the directions of the Supreme Court have become impossible
       to be implemented because of certain subsequent events or
       developments – After disposal of an appeal / petition, the Supreme
       Court becomes functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction to
       entertain any application. [Para 20]
       SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 – Practice and Procedure –
       Application projected as an application for clarification, though
       it was registered as a miscellaneous application – Practice
       deprecated.
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXIII, Rule 1 – Scope
       thereof, explained.
       Held: There are two Orders in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
       which permit review of a judgment or an order of the Supreme
       Court, Orders XLVII and XLVIII – The former Order, contained in


* Author
1024                                                            [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


    Part IV of the 2013 Rules, relates to “Review of a Judgment” and
    the latter relates to “Curative Petition” – There is no other provision
    in the 2013 Rules, whereby a litigant can apply for modification of
    a judgment or an order of the Supreme Court in a matter which
    stands finally concluded – By taking out a Miscellaneous Application,
    the applicant cannot ask for reliefs which were not granted in the
    main judgment itself. [Para 10]
    Through this miscellaneous application, the applicant seeks a
    direction upon the Rajasthan Discoms for making payment of
    Rs.1376.35 crores – The present application has been captioned
    as “APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
    RESPONDENT NO.1/APPLICANT (ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN
    LIMITED)” in the said appeals which stood disposed of by a
    common judgment of a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme
    Court delivered on 31.08.2020 – Review petitions filed against
    this judgment by the Rajasthan Discoms stood dismissed on
    02.03.2021. [Para 2]
    In the course of hearing, it was projected as an application for
    clarification, though the same was registered as a miscellaneous
    application – The reliefs asked for in this application do not refer
    to any clarification. [Para 9]
    The applicant had expressed its desire to withdraw the present
    application on the last date of hearing, i.e., 24.01.2024 – The
    Supreme Court, however, decided not to permit such simpliciter
    withdrawal – Even if an applicant applies for withdrawal of an
    application, in exceptional cases, it would be within the jurisdiction of
    the Supreme Court to examine the application and pass appropriate
    orders – So far as the present proceeding is concerned, an important
    question of law has arisen as regards jurisdiction of the Supreme
    Court to entertain an application taken out in connection with a set
    of statutory appeals which stood disposed of – Judgment of the
    Supreme Court in Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner
    Resident Welfare Association & Others, (2023) 10 SCC 817
    deals with this question and the ratio of the said judgment would
    apply to the present proceeding as well. [Para 19]
    The Supreme Court becomes functus officio and does not retain
    jurisdiction to entertain an application after the appeal was disposed
    of by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme
    Court – This is not an application for correcting any clerical or
    arithmetical error – Neither it is an application for extension of
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                              1025

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

     time – A post disposal application for modification and clarification
     of the order of disposal shall lie only in rare cases, where the
     order passed by the Supreme Court is executory in nature and the
     directions contained in the judgment may become impossible to
     be implemented because of subsequent events or developments–
     The factual background of this Application does not fit into that
     description. [Para 20]
     SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 - Order XII, Rule 3 read with
     Rule 6 of Order LV – Filing of applications after disposal of the
     statutory appeal by invoking inherent powers of the Supreme
     Court – Held, impermissible.
     Held: The maintainability of the present application cannot be
     explained by invoking the inherent power of the Supreme Court
     either – The applicant has not applied for review of the main
     judgment – In the contempt action, it failed to establish any wilful
     disobedience of the main judgment and order – Now the applicant
     cannot continue to hitchhike on the same judgment by relying on
     the inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court. [Para 13]
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 152 read with Order XII,
     Rule 3 of the SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 – Rectification
     of an arithmetic order – permissibility thereof.
     Held: A miscellaneous application had been filed for modification
     of the content of judgment dated 1st September 2020 passed
     in M.A. (D) No. 9887 of 2020 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6328-6399
     of 2015 – In the said proceeding, clarification was also sought
     on the aspect that the judgment did not bar the Union of India
     from considering and rectifying the clerical/arithmetical errors
     in computation of certain dues – This was an order permitting
     rectification of an arithmetic error, which is implicit in Section 152
     of the CPC read with Order XII Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules. [Para 18]
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 148 read with Section
     112 - Power of the Supreme Court to extend time.
     Held: The power to extend time beyond that fixed by a Court on a
     legitimate ground is incorporated in Section 148 of the CPC – If the
     time to do something requires to be extended, it would be within
     the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to go beyond the
     maximum period of 30 days prescribed in the aforesaid Section,
     after sufficient reason is shown – Section 112 of the Code itself
     provides that nothing contained in the CPC shall affect the inherent
1026                                                       [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


    powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 or any other
    provision of the Constitution. [Para 17]
    SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 - Order XII, Rule 3 – Imposition
    of costs on filing of applications after disposal of the statutory
    appeal.
    Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the present application and
    imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the applicant to be
    remitted to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee as it was
    listed several times. [Para 23]

                            Case Law Cited
         Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited v.
         Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited,
         [2021] 13 SCR 738 : M. A. No. 1166 of 2021 in CA
         No. 8129 of 2019 – relied on.
         Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident
         Welfare Association & Others [2021] 10 SCR 569 :
         (2023) 10 SCC 817 – Relied on.
         State (UT of Delhi) v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others
         [2000] Suppl. 2 SCR 496 : (2000) 7 SCC 296; Sone
         Lal and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 2 SCC
         398; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Others
         [2003] Suppl. 4 SCR 543; (2004) 12 SCC 713; Common
         Cause v. Union of India and Others (2004) 5 SCC 222;
         Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another v. State of Gujarat
         and Others [2004] Suppl. 2 SCR 571 : (2004) 5 SCC
         353; P.N. Eswara Iyer and Others v. Registrar, Supreme
         Court of India [1980] 2 SCR 889 : (1980) 4 SCC 680;
         Suthendraraja alias Suthenthira Raja alias Santhan
         and Others v. State through DSP/CBI, SIT, Chennai
         [1999] Suppl. 3 SCR 540 : (1999) 9 SCC 323; Ramdeo
         Chauhan alias Raj Nath v. State of Assam [2001] 3 SCR
         669 : (2001) 5 SCC 714; Devendra Pal Singh v. State
         (NCT of Delhi) and Another [2002] Suppl. 5 SCR 332
         : (2003) 2 SCC 501; Rashid Khan Pathan in re (2021)
         12 SCC 64 – referred to.
         Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory
         Commission and Others, MA Nos. 2705 – 2706 of
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                            1027

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

           2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5399 – 5400 of 2016;
           Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. V. Adani
           Power (Mundra) Limited, MA (D) No. 18461 of 2023 in
           Civil Appeal No. 2908 of 2022; Kalpataru Properties
           Pvt. Ltd. v. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., MA No.
           2064 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 7050 of 2022;
           Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident
           Welfare Association & Ors., MA No. 1918 of 2021
           in Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2021; Union of India v.
           Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of
           India and Ors., MA No. 83 of 2021 in MA (D) No.
           9887 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 6328-6399 of
           2015] – distinguished.

                                List of Acts
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

                             List of Keywords
     Miscellaneous Application, Clarification Application, Modification
     Application, Costs, Inherent Powers, Maintainability, Post Dismissal
     Application.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous Application Diary
     No.21994 of 2022
     In
     Civil Appeal Nos.8625-8626 of 2019
     From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2020 in C. A. Nos.8625-
     8626 of 2019 of the Supreme Court of India
                         Appearances for Parties
     Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv., Kartik Seth, Anshul Chowdhary, Prashanth
     R. Dixit, Ms. Arushi Rathore, Abhishek Kandwal, Amit Goyal, Mahesh
     Bhati, Saurabh Chaturvedi, M/s. Chambers of Kartik Seth, Advs. for
     the Appellants.
     Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Poonam Sengupta,
     Arshit Anand, Shashwat Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kapoor, Saunak Rajguru,
     Sidharth Seem, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Respondents/Applicants.
1028                                                       [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment
     Aniruddha Bose, J.
     The applicant, Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL), is a generating
     company as per Section 2(28) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“2003
     Act”). It operates a thermal power plant in the State of Rajasthan.
     There were three appellants (1 to 3) in the main set of appeals, in
     connection with which the present application has been taken out,
     being the distribution licensees of the State of Rajasthan as per the
     provisions of the 2003 Act. They shall, henceforth in this judgment,
     be collectively referred to as “Rajasthan Discoms”. Rajasthan Urja
     Vikas Nigam Limited was the 4th appellant in the main set of appeals.
     It appears to have been formed by the Government of Rajasthan for
     the purpose of coordination among the aforesaid three Discoms, as
     also other distribution licensees of the State.
2.   Through this miscellaneous application, the applicant seeks a direction
     upon the Rajasthan Discoms for making payment of Rs.1376.35
     crore towards Late Payment Surcharge (“LPS”). This claim has been
     raised by the applicant citing Article 8.3.5 of the Power Purchase
     Agreement dated 28.01.2010 (“PPA-2010”) entered into between
     the Rajasthan Discoms and the applicant. The present application
     has been captioned as “APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS ON
     BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/APPLICANT (ADANI
     POWER RAJASTHAN LIMITED)” in the said appeals which stood
     disposed of by a common judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this
     Court delivered on 31.08.2020. Review petitions filed against this
     judgment by the Rajasthan Discoms stood dismissed on 02.03.2021.
3.   The appeals arose out of a dispute involving certain additional
     payments claimed by the applicant as per the PPA-2010. Under the
     agreement, the applicant was to supply electricity to the Rajasthan
     Discoms, which had to be generated by the applicant. For this
     purpose, the PPA-2010 postulated domestic coal as the primary
     source of energy, while imported coal was to be used as a backup
     option. The applicant’s complaint was that, due to non-availability
     of sufficient domestic coal, it could not be allocated a domestic coal
     linkage by the Government of India and it was compelled to rely on
     imported coal from Indonesia, which had a higher cost. Claim for
     compensation of loss, caused on account of non-supply of domestic
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                        1029

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

     coal, was raised by the applicant before the Rajasthan Electricity
     Regulatory Commission (“RERC”), invoking the change in law clause
     of the PPA-2010. Change in law was one of the conditions under
     the PPA-2010, for which tariff adjustment payment could be made
     by the seller of electricity following the procedure stipulated in the
     aforesaid agreement. By an order dated 17.05.2018, RERC held
     that the applicant would be entitled to relief on account of change
     in law, which was held to be the difference between actual landed
     cost of alternative/imported coal (as certified by the auditor) and
     actual landed cost of domestic linkage coal. This was recorded in
     an order passed on 25.02.2022 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
     in a contempt action brought by the applicant [Contempt Petition
     (Civil) No(s) 877-878 of 2021]. We shall refer to the said proceeding
     later in this judgment. We also need not delve into the question of
     eligibility of the applicant to get additional sum on account of change
     in law, as that question stands finally decided in the main judgment.
4.   The applicant had also raised another claim for additional payment
     before the RERC, under the head of carrying cost which was
     disallowed by the RERC. Rajasthan Discoms, being aggrieved by
     the grant of change-in-law compensation, as also the applicant, being
     aggrieved by rejection of the claim for carrying costs appealed against
     the order of the RERC before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
     (“APTEL”). By a common decision dated 14.09.2019, the APTEL
     found that the applicant’s claim based on “change in law” was valid
     and opined that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the
     loss caused to it because of change in law under a subsequent coal
     supply scheme, termed as the SHAKTI scheme, which failed to provide
     domestic coal linkage. The APTEL further found that the applicant
     would also be entitled for payment towards applicable carrying cost.
     The Rajasthan Discoms had appealed against the common decision
     of APTEL before this Court. The three-Judge Bench of this Court,
     by the judgement dated 31.08.2020, dismissed the appeals with the
     following observations and directions: -
           “66. Considering the facts of this case and keeping in
           view that the RERC and APTEL have given concurrent
           findings in favour of the respondent with regard to change
           in law, with which we also concur, we may now deal with
           the question of liability of appellants-Rajasthan Discoms
           with regard to late payment surcharge. In this regard, the
1030                                                      [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


        following Articles 8.3.5 and 8.8 of PPA, which are relevant
        for the present purpose, are extracted hereunder:
        “8.3.5. 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, on the amount of outstanding payment,
        calculated on a day to day basis (and compounded with
        monthly rest), for each day of the delay. The Late Payment
        Surcharge shall be claimed by the Seller through the
        Supplementary Bill.
             8.8 Payment of Supplementary Bill
             8.8.1 Either Party may raise a bill on the other Party
             (supplementary bill) for payment on account of:
             i)     Adjustments required by the Regional Energy
                    Account (if applicable):
             ii)    Tariff Payment for change in parameters,
                    pursuant to provisions in Schedule 4; or
             iii)   Change in Law as provided in Article 10, and
                    such Supplementary Bill shall be paid by the
                    others party.
             8.8.2 The Procurers shall remit all amounts due
             under a Supplementary Bill raised by the Seller to
             the Seller’s Designated Account by the Due Date and
             notify the Seller of such remittance on the same day
             or the Seller shall be eligible to draw such amounts
             through the Letter of Credit. Similarly, the Seller shall
             pay all amounts due under a Supplementary Bill
             raised by Procurer(s) by the Due Date to concerned
             Procurer’s designated bank account and notify such
             Procurer(s) of such payment on the same day.
             For such payments by the Procurer(s), Rebate as
             applicable to Monthly Bills pursuant to Article 8.3.6
             shall equally apply.
             8.8.3 In the event of delay in payment of a
             Supplementary Bill by either Party beyond its Due
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                            1031

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

                Date, a Late Payment Surcharge shall be payable
                at the same terms applicable to the Monthly Bill in
                Article 8.3.5.
                8.9 The copies of all; notices/offers which are required
                to be sent as per the provisions of this Article 8, shall
                be sent by a party, simultaneously to all parties.”
           Liability of the Late Payment Surcharge which has been
           saddled upon the appellants is at the rate of 2% in
           excess of applicable SBAR per annum, on the amount of
           outstanding payment, calculated on a day to day basis
           (and compounded with monthly rest) for each day of the
           delay. Therefore, there shall be huge liability of payment
           of Late Payment Surcharge upon the appellants-Rajasthan
           Discoms.
           67. With regard to the question of interest/late payment
           surcharge, we notice that the plea of change in law was
           initially raised by APRL in the year 2013. A case was also
           filed by APRL in the year 2013 itself raising its claim on
           such basis. However, the appellants-Rajasthan Discoms
           did not allow the claim regarding change in law, because
           of which APRL was deprived of raising the bills with effect
           from the date of change in law in the year 2013. We
           are, thus, of the opinion that considering the totality of
           the facts of this case and in order to do complete justice
           and to reduce the liability of the appellants-Rajasthan
           Discoms, payment of 2 per cent in excess of the applicable
           SBAR per annum with monthly rest would be on higher
           side. In our opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the
           appellants-Rajasthan Discoms to pay interest/late payment
           surcharge as per applicable SBAR for the relevant years,
           which should not exceed 9 per cent per annum. It is also
           provided that instead of monthly rest, the interest would
           be compounded per annum.
           68. We accordingly direct that the rate of interest/late
           payment surcharge would be at SBAR, not exceeding 9
           per cent per annum, to be compounded annually, and the
           2 per cent above the SBAR (as provided in Article 8.3.5
           of PPA) would not be charged in the present case.
1032                                                        [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          69. Before we part with the case, we may notice that
          Shri Prashant Bhushan, raised the submission with
          respect to over-invoicing. He attracted our attention to the
          investigation pending before the DRI. He has submitted
          that 40 importers of coal are under investigation by the DRI
          concerning alleged over-invoicing. The letter of rogatory
          was issued. However, leamed counsel conceded that there
          is no ultimate conclusion in the investigation reached so far.
          Thus, we are of the opinion that until and unless there is
          a finding recorded by the competent court as to invoicing,
          the submission cannot be accepted. At this stage, it cannot
          be said that there is over-invoicing. We have examined
          the case on merits with abundant caution, and we find
          that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the
          RERC and the APTEL. With respect to the aspect that
          bid was premised on domestic coal, we find that findings
          recorded do not call for any interference.”
5.   The applicant had filed contempt proceedings alleging disobedience
     of the said judgment and order, which were registered as Contempt
     Petition (C) Nos. 877-878 of 2021. We have already referred to this
     proceeding. In the contempt proceeding, the applicant’s position
     gets reflected in the submissions of its learned senior counsel,
     recorded in paragraph 6 of the order passed on 25.02.2022 (One
     of us, Aniruddha Bose, J., was a party to this order). The relevant
     portion of that order is reproduced below:-
          “6. Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel
          appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the only
          dispute which was to be resolved by RERC, APTEL and
          this Court was with regard to the payment due because of
          “change in law”, which was held to be the actual landed
          cost of alternate coal/imported coal as certified by the
          auditor minus landed cost of domestic linkage coal. There
          was no other dispute which was to be resolved by this
          Court. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that it is
          now contended by the respondents that certain payments
          have been made by the respondents which, according to
          the learned Senior Counsel, was towards regular payment
          on the basis of domestic linkage coal and nothing else.
          Since, the “change in law” ground of the petitioner has been
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                             1033

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

           accepted by all the authorities i.e. RERC, APTEL and this
           Court and also confirmed by the dismissal of the Review
           Petition filed before this Court, the question cannot now be
           reopened at this stage. It is, thus, submitted that since the
           actual landed cost of alternate coal/imported coal as was
           submitted by the petitioner has been duly certified by the
           auditors, which has not been disputed by the respondents,
           the payment, as claimed, ought to have been made and
           since the same has not been paid, the respondents are
           liable for contempt. The further contention of the learned
           Senior Counsel of the petitioner is that the claim of the
           respondents that they had paid certain amount towards
           energy charges regularly month by month, which included
           certain amount of price of alternate coal/imported coal
           charges cannot be accepted, as at that stage i.e. in the
           year 2013, the respondents had not accepted the claim
           of the petitioner with regard to “change in law”, and the
           assertion now being made by the respondents that they had
           paid certain amount after partially accepting the “change
           in law” theory cannot be accepted, as this issue had never
           been raised by respondents in any proceedings earlier, as
           the respondents had, in fact, throughout contested that
           the petitioner is not entitled to the “change in law” benefit.”
6.   The allegations of non-compliance with the judgment of the three-
     Judge Bench were dealt with by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid
     order passed on 25.02.2022. It was, inter-alia, observed and directed
     in the said order:-
           “9. Firstly, what we have to consider is only the effect of
           “change in law”, which as per RERC, API’EL and this Court
           would be the actual landed cost of alternate coal/ imported
           coal minus the landed cost of domestic linkage coal. The
           question of any claim which the respondents may have
           against the petitioner, is not an issue before us. As per the
           principle laid down by RERC and affirmed up till this Court,
           the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.5344. 75 crores
           up to March, 2021. The said principle having been affirmed
           by the APTEL as well as by this Court and even in Review
           Petition, cannot be reopened now. It cannot be disputed
           that after March, 2021 also, the petitioner would be entitled
1034                                                      [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          to payment on the basis of the same calculation, which up
          to November, 2021 comes to Rs.130.69 crores. As such,
          the due amount up to November 2021 would be Rs.5344.
          75 + Rs.130.69 = 54 75.44 crores. Out of this amount of
          Rs.54 75.44 crores, the petitioner has been paid a sum
          of Rs.2426.81 crores in terms of the interim order passed
          by this Court. Hence, as per the petitioner, the balance
          amount of Rs.3048.63 crores would remain due to be
          paid up to November, 2021. The interest at the maximum
          rate of 9% per annum, as capped by this Court vide its
          judgment and order dated 31.08.2020, is to be applied on
          the said amount, from the date the amount became due,
          till the date of actual payment. The further claim of late
          payment surcharge, amounting to Rs.2477.70 crores, as
          per the petitioner, would be a subject matter which the
          petitioner, if so advised, can claim before the appropriate
          forum, as the same is not the subject in question in the
          present proceedings, regarding which no directions have
          also been issued by this Court.
          10. As such, considering the totality of facts and
          circumstances of this case, prima face we are of the
          opinion that the respondents are liable for contempt for
          not complying this Court’s order dated 31.08.2020. We,
          thus, direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner, the
          principal amount (as per the terms/norms laid down in the
          judgment of this Court dated 31.08.2020) minus Rs.2426.81
          crores deposited by the respondents in terms of the interim
          order dated 29.10.2018 (which, as per the petitioner, the
          balance payable amount would be Rs.3048.63 crores)
          along with interest as per the applicable SBAR for the
          relevant years, which should not exceed 9% per annum
          (to be compounded annually), from the date the amount
          became due till the date of actual payment, within four
          weeks from today, failing which the respondents shall
          appear before this Court in person, on the next date, so
          as to enable this Court to frame charges.”
7.   The contempt petitions were subsequently directed to be closed by
     another Coordinate Bench of this Court and order to that effect was
     passed on 19.04.2022. In this order, it was, inter-alia, observed:-
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                         1035

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

           “With regard to the first question it may only be observed
           that by order dated 25.02.2022 passed in these contempt
           petitions, this court, in paragraph no. 9, has observed as
           under:
                “The further claim of late payment surcharge,
                amounting to Rs.2477.70 crores, as per the
                petitioner, would be a subject matter which
                the petitioner, if so advised, can claim before
                the appropriate forum, as the same is not the
                subject in question in the present proceedings,
                regarding which no directions have also been
                issued by this Court.”
           As such, since according to the respondent(s) the payment
           made is only towards the principal amount plus 9% interest
           per annum, we are not inclined to pass any further orders
           as we have already left the question of late payment
           surcharge open, which the petitioner, if so advised, can
           claim before the appropriate forum.
           As regards the second question of the alleged non-
           compliance, by the respondents after November, 2021
           of the judgment and order dated 31.08.2020, we would
           not like to make any observation as there is neither. any
           material before us with regard to that nor the same was
           in question when the contempt petitions were filed. As
           such, we leave this question open to be agitated by the
           petitioner, of it is so advised.
           With regard to the last issue raised by the respondents,
           which is to the effect that the claim of the Rajasthan
           Utilities against the petitioner outside the judgment dated
           31.08.2020 be permitted to be made, we would only like to
           observe that the same cannot be a matter to be considered
           in a contempt petition and as such neither we are inclined
           to grant any such relief nor stop them from raising any
           such issue, if the respondents are so advised and found
           entitled under the law. With the aforesaid observations,
           we close these contempt petitions.”
8.   After institution of the present application on 19.07.2022, it was heard
     from time to time and finally on 24.01.2024, when this matter was
1036                                                         [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     called on for hearing, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior
     counsel, appearing for the applicant, sought leave to withdraw the
     application. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for
     the Rajasthan Discoms, however, opposed such prayer and his case
     was that the present application, having been taken out in an appeal
     which stood disposed of, did not lie and it should be dismissed on
     the ground that it is not maintainable. Mr. Dave drew our attention
     to paragraph 67 of the judgment of the three-Judge Bench, which
     we have quoted above. The issue of LPS has been dealt with by
     the three-Judge Bench in the said passage.
9.   In the course of hearing, it was projected as an application for
     clarification, though the same was registered as a miscellaneous
     application. The reliefs asked for in this application do not refer to
     any clarification. We have referred to the substance of the reliefs
     prayed for in this application earlier in this judgment.
10. Order XII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (“2013 Rules”)
    framed in pursuance of Article 145 of the Constitution of India,
    stipulates:-
          “3. Subject to the provisions contained in Order XLVII of
          these rules, a judgment pronounced by the Court or by
          a majority of the Court or by a dissenting Judge in open
          Court shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save for
          the purpose of correcting a clerical or arithmetical mistake
          or an error arising from any accidental slip or omission.”
     There are, however, two chapters in the 2013 Rules which permit
     review of a judgment or order of this Court, being Order XLVII and
     XLVIII. The former Order, contained in Part IV of the 2013 Rules
     relates to “Review of a Judgment” and the latter relates to “Curative
     Petition”. There is no other provision in the 2013 Rules, whereby a
     litigant can apply for modification of a judgment or an order of this
     Court in a matter which stands finally concluded. On rare occasions,
     a litigant may apply for clarification of an order if the same is ex-facie
     incomprehensible, but we do not expect any judgment or order to
     bear such a character. So far as the applicant is concerned, it did
     not apply for review of the judgment delivered by the three-Judge
     Bench. Neither in the contempt action initiated by the applicant, did
     this Court find that any case of willful disobedience of the judgment
     of the three-Judge Bench was made out on the question of LPS.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                          1037

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

     This would be apparent from the orders passed by this Court in
     the contempt petitions which have been reproduced earlier in this
     judgement. The judgment of the three-Judge Bench has already
     examined the question of LPS and by taking out a Miscellaneous
     Application, the applicant cannot ask for reliefs which were not
     granted in the main judgment itself.
11. In the case of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited -vs-
    Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited [M.A. No. 1166
    of 2021 in CA No. 8129 of 2019], a two-Judge Bench of this Court
    in its judgment delivered on 17th August 2022 observed and held:-
           “4. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties
           and having perused the relevant materials placed on
           record, we are of the considered view that the present
           applications are nothing else but an attempt to seek review
           of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 13th
           April 2021 under the garb of miscellaneous application.
           5. We find that there is a growing tendency of
           indirectly seeking review of the orders of this Court
           by filing applications either seeking modifications or
           clarifications of the orders passed by this Court.
           6. In our view, such applications are a total abuse of
           process of law. The valuable time of Court is spent in
           deciding such application which time would otherwise
           be utilized for attending litigations of the litigants who
           are waiting in the corridors of justice for decades
           together.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)
12. Subsequently in the judgment of this Court in the case of Supertech
    Limited-vs- Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association
    & Others [(2023) 10 SCC 817], a two-Judge Bench of this Court
    examined the maintainability of miscellaneous applications “for
    clarification, modification or recall” and was pleased to observe the
    following in the context of that case:-
           “12. The attempt in the present miscellaneous application is
           clearly to seek a substantive modification of the judgment
           of this Court. Such an attempt is not permissible in a
           miscellaneous application. While Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned
1038                                                     [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          Senior Counsel has relied upon the provisions of Order
          LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, what is
          contemplated therein is a saving of the inherent powers of
          the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for
          the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process
          of the Court. Order LV Rule 6 cannot be inverted to bypass
          the provisions for review in Order XLVII of the Supreme
          Court Rules, 2013. The miscellaneous application is an
          abuse of the process.”
     The authorities which were cited in the said Judgment by the
     Coordinate Bench are the cases of State (UT of Delhi) -vs- Gurdip
     Singh Uban and Others [(2000) 7 SCC 296], Sone Lal and Others
     -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh [(1982) 2 SCC 398], Ram Chandra
     Singh -vs- Savitri Devi and Others [(2004 12 SCC 713], Common
     Cause -vs- Union of India and Others [(2004) 5 SCC 222], Zahira
     Habibullah Sheikh and Another -vs- State of Gujarat and Others
     [(2004) 5 SCC 353], P.N. Eswara Iyer and Others -vs- Registrar,
     Supreme Court of India [(1980) 4 SCC 680], Suthendraraja alias
     Suthenthira Raja alias Santhan and Others -vs- State through
     DSP/CBI, SIT, Chennai [(1999) 9 SCC 323], Ramdeo Chauhan
     alias Raj Nath -vs- State of Assam [(2001) 5 SCC 714], Devendra
     Pal Singh -vs- State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2003) 2 SCC
     501] and Rashid Khan Pathan in re, [(2021) 12 SCC 64]. These
     authorities broadly stipulate that multiple attempts to reopen a
     judgment of this Court should not be permitted. Hence, we do not
     consider it necessary to deal with these authorities individually.
13. Rule 6 of Order LV of the 2013 Rules stipulates: -
          “6. Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or
          otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make
          such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice
          or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.”
     The maintainability of the present application cannot be explained by
     invoking the inherent power of this Court either. The applicant has
     not applied for review of the main judgment. In the contempt action,
     it failed to establish any willful disobedience of the main judgment
     and order on account of non-payment of LPS. Now the applicant
     cannot continue to hitchhike on the same judgment by relying on
     the inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                       1039

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

14. Appearing on behalf of the applicant, Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior
    Counsel, relied on five orders of this Court in which post-disposal
    applications were entertained. The first one was an order dated
    29.10.2018 in the case of Energy Watchdog -vs- Central Electricity
    Regulatory Commission and Others, [MA Nos.2705-2706 of 2018
    in Civil Appeal Nos.5399-5400 of 2016]. In that case, an application
    for impleadment on behalf of the State of Gujarat was allowed, upon
    going through a High Power Committee’s report, which was given
    after the judgment was delivered. The judgment disposing of the
    Civil Appeal was delivered on 11.04.2017, but in the miscellaneous
    application, the applicant was given liberty to approach the Central
    Electricity Regulatory Commission for approval of the proposed
    amendments to be made to a power purchase agreement. That
    was a case where this Court, after the judgment was delivered,
    considered certain events which accrued subsequently and had a
    bearing on the main decision. The subsequent event was taken into
    account for modifying the order but there was no substantive change
    in the judgment itself.
15. The next order, on which Dr. Singhvi placed reliance, was passed
    on 04.05.2023 in the case of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
    & Anr. -vs- Adani Power (Mundra) Limited [MA (D) No. 18461 of
    2023 in Civil Appeal No.2908 of 2022]. The substantive part of the
    order is contained in Paragraph 2 thereof and this paragraph reads:-
           “2. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the
           words “As per the details given in the PPA, the mode of
           transportation is through railway” shown in paragraph 32
           of the judgment dated 20.04.2023 passed in C.A. No. 2908
           of 2022 be read as “As per the details given in the FSA,
           the mode of transportation is through railway”.
     But this order appears to be in the nature of correcting an error
     which was clerical in nature and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
     (“the Code”) itself provides for such correction under Section 152
     thereof, as also Order XII Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules.
16. The third order relied on by Dr. Singhvi was passed on 09.12.2022 in
    the case of Kalpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd. -vs- Indiabulls Housing
    Finance Ltd. [MA No.2064 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No.7050 of 2022].
    The applicant therein had approached this Court contending that he
    was not heard when the civil appeal was decided. In that case, the
1040                                                      [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


    appellant had approached this Court against an Order passed by
    NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 880/2021 and the
    said appellant sought to withdraw the appeal on deposit of certain
    amount by the first respondent in the said appeal. The request was
    accepted by this Court and by the Order passed on 26.09.2022, the
    appeal pending before the NCLAT was also disposed of by this Court.
    The applicant was an intervenor before the NCLAT and his submission
    was that in the appeal before the NCLAT which was disposed of,
    he also sought to raise some grievances before the NCLAT, in his
    capacity as an intervenor. His case was that he should have been
    given the liberty to be heard as an intervenor before the NCLAT. A
    Coordinate Bench of this Court entertained that application and held: -
         “We do believe that this controversy should be resolved
         by the NCLAT itself i.e. whether on the appellants seeking
         to withdraw the appeal, there can be any impediment in
         withdrawal of the appeal and is the NCLAT really required
         to comment on the merits of the order of the NCLT at the
         behest of an intervener. We further make it clear that we
         are not expanding the array of parties before the NCLAT
         as a number of entities seems to have jumped into the
         picture as the matter has gone on before the Court. We
         make it clear that only the parties/existing interventionist
         before the NCLAT will have the right of hearing.
         In view of the orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 9062/2022,
         this appeal will also to be listed before the Bench presided
         over by the Chairman.
         In view thereof, the final picture which would emerge would
         be before the NCLAT and to that extent the order passed
         by us on 14.11.2022 would be kept in abeyance till the
         NCLAT resolves the issue.”
    Again, this Order was in the nature of a review order by the applicant
    who was a party to the proceeding before the NCLAT. All the appeals
    before the NCLAT were disposed of without hearing him. The context
    is entirely different from the one in which the applicant has presently
    approached this Court.
17. The fourth order on which the present applicant relied was passed
    on 12.08.2022 in the case of Supertech Limited -vs- Emerald
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                       1041

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

     Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors. [MA No.1918
     of 2021 in Civil Appeal No.5041 of 2021]. The Coordinate Bench
     of this Court granted extension of time, as sought by the applicant
     therein, in effecting demolition of two building towers which were
     approved by the Court while disposing of the civil appeal. The power
     to extend time beyond that fixed by a Court on a legitimate ground is
     incorporated in Section 148 of the Code. If the time to do something
     requires to be extended, it would be within the inherent jurisdiction of
     this Court to go beyond the maximum period of 30 days prescribed
     in the aforesaid Section, after sufficient reason is shown. Section
     112 of the Code itself provides that nothing contained in the Code
     shall affect the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article
     136 or any other provision of the Constitution.
18. The fifth order referred to by the applicant was passed on 23.07.2021
    in the case of Union of India -vs- Association of Unified Telecom
    Service Providers of India and Ors. [MA No.83 of 2021 in MA
    (D) No. 9887 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No.6328-6399 of 2015]. A
    miscellaneous application had been filed for modification of the
    content of judgment dated 1st September 2020 passed in M.A. (D)
    No. 9887 of 2020 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6328-6399 of 2015. In the
    said proceeding, clarification was also sought on the aspect that
    the judgment did not bar the Union of India from considering and
    rectifying the clerical/arithmetical errors in computation of certain
    dues. This was again an Order, in substance, permitting rectification
    of an arithmetic error, which is implicit in Section 152 of the Code
    read with Order XII Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules.
19. We have indicated in the earlier part of this judgment that Dr. Singhvi
    had expressed his desire to withdraw the present application on
    the last date of hearing, i.e., 24.01.2024. Ordinarily, we would not
    have had set out the background leading to the filing of the present
    application and the course of the application that was taken before
    this Court in view of such submission. Any plaintiff would be entitled
    to abandon a suit or abandon part of the claim made in the suit at
    any time after institution of the suit, as provided in Rule 1 of Order
    XXIII of the Code. We, however, decided not to permit such simpliciter
    withdrawal, as the Rajasthan Discoms sought imposition of costs.
    Secondly, in our opinion, the provision which pertains to a suit would
    not ipso facto apply to a miscellaneous application invoking inherent
    powers of this Court, instituted in a set of statutory appeals which
1042                                                         [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     stood disposed of. Even if an applicant applies for withdrawal of an
     application, in exceptional cases, it would be within the jurisdiction
     of the Court to examine the application and pass appropriate orders.
     So far as the present proceeding is concerned, an important question
     of law has arisen as regards jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an
     application taken out in connection with a set of statutory appeals
     which stood disposed of. Judgment of this Court in Supertech
     Limited (supra) deals with this question and in our opinion, the ratio
     of the said judgment would apply to the present proceeding as well.
20. We felt it necessary to examine the question about maintainability of
    the present application as we are of the view that it was necessary
    to spell out the position of law as to when such post-disposal
    miscellaneous applications can be entertained after a matter is
    disposed of. This Court has become functus officio and does not
    retain jurisdiction to entertain an application after the appeal was
    disposed of by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court
    on 31.08.2020 through a course beyond that specified in the statute.
    This is not an application for correcting any clerical or arithmetical
    error. Neither it is an application for extension of time. A post disposal
    application for modification and clarification of the order of disposal
    shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this Court
    is executory in nature and the directions of the Court may become
    impossible to be implemented because of subsequent events or
    developments. The factual background of this Application does not
    fit into that description.
21. Our attention was drawn to an order passed on 14.12.2022 in which
    a Coordinate Bench was of the prima facie opinion that the applicant
    may be entitled to LPS as per Article 8.3.5 of PPA-2010, at least
    from 31.08.2020, till the actual payment was made pursuant to the
    order passed by this Court in the contempt proceedings. This prima
    facie view was expressed in the course of hearing of the present
    application only. We have examined the issue in greater detail. As
    we have already indicated, the applicant, after the three-Judge Bench
    decision was delivered, did not file any petition for review. On the
    other hand, it was the Rajasthan Discoms that had filed the review
    petitions which stood dismissed. In the contempt action instituted by
    the applicant, the question concerning payment of LPS was raised,
    but the Bench of this Court found that the same was not the subject
    in question in the contempt proceedings regarding which no direction
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                       1043

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

     had been issued by this Court. Hence the Coordinate Bench decided
     not to address that question in the contempt proceedings. In this
     judgement, we have already quoted the observations regarding the
     question of LPS made by the Contempt Court on 25.02.2022 and
     19.04.2022. Despite that question being left open by the Contempt
     Court, we are of the view that a miscellaneous application is not the
     proper legal course to make demand on that count. A relief of this
     nature cannot be asked for in a miscellaneous application which was
     described in the course of hearing as an application for clarification.
22. So far as the observations made in the order passed in the present
    proceedings on 14.12.2022 are concerned, they were made only at
    a prima facie stage and do not have binding effect at the hearing
    stage. Moreover, the question whether such a prayer could be made
    in an application labeled as a “Miscellaneous Application” taken
    out in connection with a set of appeals which have been finally
    decided, does not appear to have been considered by this Court at
    the time of making of the order dated 14.12.2022. The order of this
    Court does not reflect any discussion on the issue of maintainability
    of the present application. It also does not appear to us that the
    maintainability issue was raised at that stage. Thus, mere making
    of such observations cannot be construed to mean that this Court
    found such application to be maintainable.
23. We, accordingly, dismiss the present application. This application was
    listed before us on several occasions and for that reason we impose
    costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the applicant to be remitted to
    the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.


     Headnotes prepared by:                              Result of the case:
     Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor             Application dismissed
     (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)