(A) Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XII Rule 3, XLVII and XLVIII, Order LV Rule 6 –Practice and Procedure – Miscellaneous application in disposed of appeal–Maintainability of application –Held that 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. (Para 20)
(B) Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XII Rule 3, XLVII and XLVIII, Order LV Rule 6 – Practice and Procedure – Miscellaneous application for clarification in disposed of appeal – 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 had been issued by this Court – Hence the Coordinate Bench decided not to address that question in the contempt proceedings – Despite that question being left open by the Contempt Court, 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 – Application was listed on several occasions and for that reason costs of Rs. 50,000/- imposed to be paid by the applicant to be remitted to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. (Para 21 and 23)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 23 Rule 1 – Practice and Procedure – Withdrawal of Miscellaneous application – Prayer for – 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 – Court decided not to permit such simpliciter withdrawal, as the Rajasthan Discoms sought imposition of costs – Secondly, 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 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 deals with this question and the ratio of the said judgment would apply to the present proceeding as well. (Para 19)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 173 SC
[2024 INSC 213]
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr.
Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 21994 Of 2022 In Civil Appeal Nos. 8625-8626 of 2019-Decided On 18-03-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-173-SC.pdf
