Supreme Court Issues Notice In Curative Petition Filed By GUVL Challenging 2019 Judgment Which Allowed Adani Group’s Appeal

Supreme Court has issued notice in a healing appeal recorded by Gujarat Urja Vikas Ltd (GUVL) against the judgment dated 2nd July 2019 that maintained end of the Power Purchase Agreement by Adani Power.

In our prima facie conclusion, there are considerable questions of law raised in this Corrective Appeal, which require thought, the five judge bench headed by CJI NV Ramana observed.

While issuing notice, the bench, moreover comprising Judges UU Lalit, AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, moreover coordinated the registry to list the matter in Open Court on 30 September 2021.

Senior Advocate and former President of Supreme Court Bar Association Dushyant Dave had composed a letter to the Chief Equity of India affirming this case (and another one) with high commercial stakes for Adani group were sporadically recorded before a specific bench in infringement of the Supreme Court practice and strategy. “Clearly, hearing and transfer of these two requests have been worn out total contravention of the settled practice of the Supreme Court as moreover its set up method. Both these things were recorded, taken up and listened without any defence, and in rush and in an disgraceful way. As a result, other than causing grave damage to open intrigued and open income, it has caused monstrous harm to the picture of the Supreme Court and the administration of justice.”, he had expressed within the letter.

In the case, Adani Control had terminated the PPA with GUVL on the ground that Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (GMDC) had fizzled to supply coal to it. Agreeing to Adani, it was the understanding between the parties that supply of control to GUVL was conditional on coal supply by GMDC. Adani too stored the sum of Rs. 25 crores as liquidated damages.

Challenging the end, GUVL drawn nearer the Gujarat State Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Commission held the end to be illicit. The terms of the PPA allowed end as it were in case both the parties were in understanding that default had happened, found the Commission. This finding was maintained by the Appellate Tribunal.

In request, the Apex Court bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Surya Kant watched that the discoveries of the Tribunal and Commission that end clause can be conjured as it were when there’s an agreement between the parties that there’s infringement of any of the conditions indicated is completely erroneous. The Court permitted the offer recorded by Adani and held that compensatory tax be paid to Adani based on the standards of financial justice since Adani would have brought about tremendous losses.

The survey request recorded by the GUVL was rejected by the same seat on 3rd September.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close