Supreme Court slams APTEL for allowing a review that reopened an issue settled by the top court, calling it a blatant breach of judicial discipline and a violation of Article 141 of the Constitution.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday, October 30, set aside a review order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) that had cut down the tariff treatment allowed to the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC), holding that the Tribunal reopened a question already settled by the Supreme Court, restoring APTEL’s original order of May 17, 2019 and imposing exemplary costs on the review petitioner and an intervener [Damodar Valley Corporation v. Maithan Alloys Limited & Ors.].
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed DVC’s civil appeal. The judgment was authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran and opens with a pointed observation:
“It is not often, but we do come across orders akin to the one impugned, which is in blatant breach of judicial discipline and in clear violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.”
The case
The dispute concerns DVC’s tariff for the 2009 to 2014 control period, fixed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) under the Electricity Act, 2003, the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 and the CERC Tariff Regulations, 2009. The central question was whether the Sinking Fund, a profit appropriation created to redeem DVC’s bonds, could be factored into tariff.
The Supreme Court had already dealt with the issue for earlier years in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited & Ors. v. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors., (2018) 8 SCC 281, holding that the fourth proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act preserves the DVC Act where it is not inconsistent with the 2003 Act, and upholding the Sinking Fund and depreciation treatment.
Relying on that precedent, APTEL upheld CERC’s 2013 tariff order on May 17, 2019. No appeal was filed against it. A review petition by Maithan Alloys Limited, however, remained pending before the Tribunal for about five years and was allowed in 2024. In review, APTEL held that DVC could claim only one of two elements, either the Sinking Fund contribution or depreciation on bond-funded assets, treating the double allowance as an error apparent on the face of the record.
What the Court said
Applying the review principles laid down in Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Bench found that the review order did not fall within any recognised ground. It noted that the double-allowance point had already been considered both in Bhaskar Shrachi and in APTEL’s own original order.
“We cannot but observe that the Tribunal has gone haywire; we are apologetic for the expression but we find no substitute to express our angst in allowing the review, that too, when the very same issue, for the earlier years, was settled by this Court in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited, based on which, the original order was passed by the Tribunal.”
The Court described the review as “clearly illegal, totally misplaced and blatantly in breach of the principles of judicial discipline” and explained the place of Article 141 in the constitutional scheme:
“As far as Article 141 is concerned it’s a Constitutional imprimatur which ensures the decisions of the highest court of the land to be followed, without which there will be mayhem.”
“We are conscious of the criticism that the Supreme Court’s decisions are supreme not because it is infallible but only because it is the final Court. However, finality and closure is the expedient need in litigation.”
The directions
The Court set aside the impugned review decision and restored APTEL’s order of May 17, 2019. It imposed costs of Rs 2,00,000 on Maithan Alloys Limited for what it called “an abuse of process of law”, and costs of Rs 1,50,000 on Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), which had intervened, payable to DVC within one month, failing which interest at 18 per cent per annum will apply. The appeal was allowed with costs, in addition to the exemplary costs.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling reaffirms that review is a narrow remedy. A tribunal cannot use it to revisit a question it has already decided, still less one that the Supreme Court has settled. An order passed in line with a binding precedent cannot be undone in review merely because the tribunal later takes a different view of the same issue.
The judgment is also a firm reminder to statutory tribunals that Article 141 binds them. By pairing strong words with exemplary costs on the review petitioner and the intervener, the Court has signalled that litigants who press tribunals to reopen settled law will bear the price.
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation v. Maithan Alloys Limited & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 11106 of 2024]
Citation: 2026 INSC 1178
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the appellant; Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher for SAIL; Advocate-on-Record Rajiv Yadav for the first respondent