Post-Disposal Application To Modify/Clarify Judgment Maintainable Only In Rare Cases : Supreme Court

While dismissing Adani Power's Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) from Rajasthan Discoms, the Supreme Court reasoned out that the miscellaneous application seeking clarification of the order passed by the court couldn't be entertained after the disposal of the matter.

The Bench Comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar underscored the settled position of law that after the disposal of the matter, filing of the post-disposal miscellaneous application is not permissible in the normal course, but only in rare circumstances as the Bench that heard the matter does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an application after the appeal was disposed.

“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.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Aniruddha Bose said.

To recapitulate, Adani Power/Applicant preferred an Application for clarification labeling it as Miscellaneous Application before the Supreme Court seeking LPS from the Rajasthan Discoms.

Deprecating such a practice, the court observed that such an application in an attempt to review/modify the judgment of the Supreme Court is not permissible.

To this effect, the court relied on its judgment of Supertech Limited-vs- Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Others, where a two-judge Bench examined the maintainability of miscellaneous applications “for clarification, modification or recall”.

Terming such an application as an abuse of process, the court in Supertech Limited observed as follows:

“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 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.”

Further, the court stated that the 2020 judgment had dealt with the issue of LPS, and it was not for the applicant to re-open it while filing the application styling as Miscellaneous Application, and faulted the applicant for not filing a review against the 2020 judgment.

Not only this, while deciding the contempt petition of the applicant where it had raised the issue of LPS, the court clarified that the same was not the subject in question in the contempt proceedings regarding which no direction had been issued by this Court.

“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.”, the court said.

Based on the above premise, the Supreme Court dismissed the application.

Counsel For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Mr. Anshul Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Prashanth R. Dixit, Adv. Ms. Arushi Rathore, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kandwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Goyal, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Bhati, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Chaturvedi, Adv. M/S. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR

Counsel For Respondent(s)/Applicant(s) Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.  Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Poonam Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Saunak Rajguru, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Seem, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

Case Title: JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS. ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD., Diary No. 21994/2022

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment