“He’s thumping the desk, he’s screaming. What’s all this? We aren’t here to be browbeaten by anyone,” Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi said about his counterpart Dushyant Dave in Adani Power Case .
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: During Today’s (24/01/2024) Supreme Court hearing involving Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) and Adani Power, a fiery exchange erupted between two prominent senior lawyers, highlighting the intense nature of legal battles in high-stakes cases.
The dispute, centered on the late payment of surcharge, saw Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing JVVNL, and Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Adani Power, engage in a heated verbal confrontation. The courtroom drama unfolded as Dave reacted strongly to Singhvi’s argument, accusing him of calling a judgment of the Supreme Court ‘nonsense’.
Dave, taken aback, exclaimed,
“Nonsense? You are calling this court’s judgment nonsense?”
Singhvi, however, quickly clarified his statement, dismissing it as “cheap dramatics” and explaining that his comment was not directed at the court’s judgment.
“Cheap dramatics! I said, allow me to spew my nonsense and for the court to correct me,”
-Singhvi retorted.
The exchange escalated when Singhvi expressed his strong objection to being browbeaten.
He remarked,
“He’s thumping the desk, he’s screaming. What’s all this? We aren’t here to be browbeaten by anyone,”
highlighting the intense atmosphere in the courtroom.
The situation intensified as Singhvi, while stating his willingness to withdraw Adani Power’s application, was met with a remark from Dave alleging fraud in the filing itself.
Singhvi objected to Dave’s interjection, stating,
“He starts arguing when I’m arguing. It’s ridiculous.”
This legal battle stems from JVVNL’s allegation that Adani Power filed an application despite a final judgment already being in place in the case. The controversy had escalated the day before when Senior Advocate Dave brought up the issue of the case’s listing before the Supreme Court. Justice Aniruddha Bose, leading the bench, took cognizance of the matter, raising questions about the delay in listing and pointing to challenges within the court’s internal processes.
The sparring unfolded as Singhvi, appearing for Adani Power, sought to move a miscellaneous application (MA) in the case concerning allegations by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (discom) that an application by Adani Power was listed before the Supreme Court despite a final judgment in the main case.
“It is maintainable. MA can and will be filed. But if lordships say otherwise, I will withdraw for appropriate remedies,”
Singhvi said.
Dave who was representing the discom, immediately objected, labeling the move as an abuse of the legal process.
“I object to this withdrawal symptom. This is an abuse of process,”
he said.
In response, Singhvi asked for clarity on the specific law referenced and cautioned against the use of words like “abuse.”
Dave, however, asserted that Singhvi has misled the Court.
“You misled the Court! You cannot be granted this, not in larger public interest. ₹1,400 crores sought to be taken from State. They did not show observations of contempt bench,”
he said.
Further, Dave accused Adani Power of ‘playing with the kindness shown by the Court’. He highlighted that the company had not filed a review petition and that the findings against the company were by a three-judge bench, which could not be re-opened by a division bench.
“Appeals were partly allowed. This was never brought to your lordships’ notice!”
he added.
Dave expressed his frustration over the Registry’s failure to list matters promptly, a problem he noted was uncommon in high courts. He suggested the necessity of a judicial order to rectify this procedural challenge, shedding light on the difficulties faced by lawyers in such situations.
Before the Court reserved its verdict, Dave expressed hope that the Bench would issue guidelines on listing and removal of matters.
Singhvi replied,
“Hope my lords do not go into unnecessary territory.”
This incident not only reflects the high tension often present in significant legal disputes but also brings to light the procedural hurdles within the judicial system, emphasizing the need for efficiency and transparency in legal proceedings.
CASE TITLE:
[Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd].
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
