Tribunal Cannot Reopen an Issue Settled by the Supreme Court in Review, Rules Supreme Court in Damodar Valley Corporation v. Maithan Alloys Limited
Case: Damodar Valley Corporation v. Maithan Alloys Limited and Others
Date of Judgment: 30 October 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Proceedings: Civil Appeal No. 11106 of 2024
Court Observation
“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,”
Summary
The Supreme Court has set aside a review order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) that had reversed the tribunal’s own 2019 decision on the Damodar Valley Corporation’s tariff for 2009 to 2014. The Court restored APTEL’s original order of 17 May 2019 and held that the review was clearly illegal and in blatant breach of judicial discipline.
The dispute concerned whether the Corporation could recover both contributions to a sinking fund for redeeming bonds and depreciation on assets created from bond proceeds through its electricity tariff. The Court held that Section 40 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act and Regulation 43 of the 2009 Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Tariff Regulations permit recovery of the sinking fund through tariff alongside depreciation, and rejected the plea that this amounted to a double benefit.
Key Holdings
- A tribunal cannot, in review, reopen and reverse its own order on an issue already settled by the Supreme Court; doing so is a blatant breach of judicial discipline and a violation of Article 141 of the Constitution.
- The judicial hierarchy thrives on the sanctity of decisions of appellate, revisional and supervisory jurisdictions, and finality and closure are an expedient need in litigation.
- Section 40 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act and Regulation 43 of the 2009 Tariff Regulations permit recovery of sinking fund contributions through tariff alongside depreciation.
- Filing a review after more than five years and waiting five years to get it heard, where no appeal was filed against the original order, is clearly an abuse of the process of law.
Directions Issued
- APTEL’s original order of 17 May 2019 is restored.
- Maithan Alloys Limited must pay costs of Rs 2 lakh and the Steel Authority of India Limited costs of Rs 1.5 lakh to the Damodar Valley Corporation within one month, failing which interest at 18 per cent per annum will apply.
Background
In 2019, APTEL upheld the Corporation’s tariff for 2009 to 2014, including recovery of contributions to a sinking fund for redeeming bonds, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys. Maithan Alloys did not appeal but sought review, and five years later APTEL held that the Corporation could claim either the sinking fund or depreciation on bond-funded assets, but not both. The Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court, with Maithan Alloys and the Steel Authority of India alleging a double benefit to the Corporation at the cost of consumers.
Related Articles
- Electricity Act: SC Limits Recovery of Dues Beyond Two Years to Continuous Arrears
- Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 362 CrPC: Inherent Power of High Courts to Recall Judgments
- Legislature Cannot Overturn Court-Ordered Cancellation of Tainted Recruitment, Rules Supreme Court
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
