Summary
Adani Power Rajasthan could not seek Rs.1,376.35 crore late-payment surcharge through a miscellaneous application in finally disposed appeals. Such an application cannot supply substantive relief beyond the judgment or bypass review and curative procedures. The claim was neither correction of an accidental error nor adjustment of executory directions made unworkable by later events. Earlier prima facie observations did not settle maintainability. Despite a withdrawal request, the Court decided the issue and dismissed the application with Rs.50,000 costs.
Issues
- Whether a post-disposal miscellaneous application could obtain additional late-payment surcharge.
- What limited circumstances permit post-disposal correction or implementation applications.
- Whether preliminary observations or a withdrawal request prevented determination of maintainability.
Provisions considered
- Order XII Rule 3; Orders XLVII and XLVIII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013Final judgments cannot be substantively altered through a miscellaneous application outside prescribed review or curative routes; clerical, arithmetical and accidental-slip correction remains distinct. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20)
- Order LV Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules, 2013Inherent powers do not enable substantive relief bypassing review rules in finally disposed appeals. (¶¶ 12, 13, 20, 21)
- Sections 148, 152 and 112, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Time extensions and clerical or arithmetic corrections were distinguished from the fresh monetary relief sought; inherent constitutional powers were acknowledged without validating this application. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18)
- Order XXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A plaintiff’s ability to abandon a suit did not automatically govern withdrawal of this post-disposal miscellaneous application; exceptional examination remained permissible. (¶ 19)
Held
- The main judgment had addressed late-payment surcharge and the applicant had not sought its review. A miscellaneous application, even described during argument as a clarification request, could not obtain substantive monetary relief absent from that judgment. Inherent powers could not be used to circumvent the prescribed routes. (¶¶ 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21)
- Permissible post-disposal steps include correction of clerical or arithmetic mistakes and appropriate extensions of time. Rare modification or clarification applications may address executory directions made impossible to implement by subsequent developments. The present demand fell into none of those categories. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20)
- The contempt orders left the further surcharge claim open to an appropriate forum; that did not make a miscellaneous application in the concluded appeals the proper course. The Court did not award the claimed surcharge through these proceedings. (¶¶ 6, 7, 21)
- An earlier order’s prima facie suggestion of possible surcharge entitlement was not binding at final hearing. It contained no consideration of maintainability and could not imply a final decision that this application was competent. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- The Court declined simpliciter withdrawal because costs were sought and an important maintainability question required determination. In exceptional circumstances it could decide a miscellaneous application despite the applicant’s withdrawal request; the suit-withdrawal rule did not automatically dictate otherwise. (¶¶ 8, 19, 20)
- The application was dismissed. Because it had occupied repeated hearings, the applicant was directed to remit Rs.50,000 costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. (¶ 23)
Result
Miscellaneous application dismissed as an impermissible post-disposal route for the relief sought. Applicant to remit Rs.50,000 costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.