Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
12. Subsequently in the judgment of this Court in the case of Supertech Limited-vs- Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Others [(2023) 10 SCC 817], a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the maintainability of miscellaneous applications “for clarification, modification or recall” and was pleased to observe the following in the context of that case:- “12. The attempt in the present miscellaneous application is clearly to seek a substantive modification of the judgment of this Court. Such an attempt is not permissible in a miscellaneous application. While Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned 1038 Senior Counsel has relied upon the provisions of Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, what is contemplated therein is a saving of the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. Order LV Rule 6 cannot be inverted to bypass the provisions for review in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The miscellaneous application is an abuse of the process.” The authorities which were cited in the said Judgment by the Coordinate Bench are the cases of State (UT of Delhi) -vs- Gurdip Singh Uban and Others [(2000) 7 SCC 296], Sone Lal and Others -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh [(1982) 2 SCC 398], Ram Chandra Singh -vs- Savitri Devi and Others [(2004 12 SCC 713], Common Cause -vs- Union of India and Others [(2004) 5 SCC 222], Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another -vs- State of Gujarat and Others [(2004) 5 SCC 353], P.N. Eswara Iyer and Others -vs- Registrar, Supreme Court of India [(1980) 4 SCC 680], Suthendraraja alias Suthenthira Raja alias Santhan and Others -vs- State through DSP/CBI, SIT, Chennai [(1999) 9 SCC 323], Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath -vs- State of Assam [(2001) 5 SCC 714], Devendra Pal Singh -vs- State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2003) 2 SCC 501] and Rashid Khan Pathan in re, [(2021) 12 SCC 64]. These authorities broadly stipulate that multiple attempts to reopen a judgment of this Court should not be permitted. Hence, we do not consider it necessary to deal with these authorities individually.
13. Rule 6 of Order LV of the 2013 Rules stipulates: – “6. Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.” The maintainability of the present application cannot be explained by invoking the inherent power of this Court either. The applicant has not applied for review of the main judgment. In the contempt action, it failed to establish any willful disobedience of the main judgment and order on account of non-payment of LPS. Now the applicant cannot continue to hitchhike on the same judgment by relying on the inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court. [2024] 3 S.C.R. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr.
14. Appearing on behalf of the applicant, Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, relied on five orders of this Court in which post-disposal applications were entertained. The first one was an order dated 29.10.2018 in the case of Energy Watchdog -vs- Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others, [MA Nos.2705-2706 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos.5399-5400 of 2016]. In that case, an application for impleadment on behalf of the State of Gujarat was allowed, upon going through a High Power Committee’s report, which was given after the judgment was delivered. The judgment disposing of the Civil Appeal was delivered on 11.04.2017, but in the miscellaneous application, the applicant was given liberty to approach the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission for approval of the proposed amendments to be made to a power purchase agreement. That was a case where this Court, after the judgment was delivered, considered certain events which accrued subsequently and had a bearing on the main decision. The subsequent event was taken into account for modifying the order but there was no substantive change in the judgment itself.
15. The next order, on which Dr. Singhvi placed reliance, was passed on 04.05.2023 in the case of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. -vs- Adani Power (Mundra) Limited [MA (D) No. 18461 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.2908 of 2022]. The substantive part of the order is contained in Paragraph 2 thereof and this paragraph reads:- “2. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the words “As per the details given in the PPA, the mode of transportation is through railway” shown in paragraph 32 of the judgment dated 20.04.2023 passed in C.A. No. 2908 of 2022 be read as “As per the details given in the FSA, the mode of transportation is through railway”. But this order appears to be in the nature of correcting an error which was clerical in nature and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) itself provides for such correction under Section 152 thereof, as also Order XII Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules.
16. The third order relied on by Dr. Singhvi was passed on 09.12.2022 in the case of Kalpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd. -vs- Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. [MA No.2064 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No.7050 of 2022]. The applicant therein had approached this Court contending that he was not heard when the civil appeal was decided. In that case, the 1040 appellant had approached this Court against an Order passed by NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 880/2021 and the said appellant sought to withdraw the appeal on deposit of certain amount by the first respondent in the said appeal. The request was accepted by this Court and by the Order passed on 26.09.2022, the appeal pending before the NCLAT was also disposed of by this Court. The applicant was an intervenor before the NCLAT and his submission was that in the appeal before the NCLAT which was disposed of, he also sought to raise some grievances before the NCLAT, in his capacity as an intervenor. His case was that he should have been given the liberty to be heard as an intervenor before the NCLAT. A Coordinate Bench of this Court entertained that application and held: – “We do believe that this controversy should be resolved by the NCLAT itself i.e. whether on the appellants seeking to withdraw the appeal, there can be any impediment in withdrawal of the appeal and is the NCLAT really required to comment on the merits of the order of the NCLT at the behest of an intervener. We further make it clear that we are not expanding the array of parties before the NCLAT as a number of entities seems to have jumped into the picture as the matter has gone on before the Court. We make it clear that only the parties/existing interventionist before the NCLAT will have the right of hearing. In view of the orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 9062/2022, this appeal will also to be listed before the Bench presided over by the Chairman. In view thereof, the final picture which would emerge would be before the NCLAT and to that extent the order passed by us on 14.11.2022 would be kept in abeyance till the NCLAT resolves the issue.” Again, this Order was in the nature of a review order by the applicant who was a party to the proceeding before the NCLAT. All the appeals before the NCLAT were disposed of without hearing him. The context is entirely different from the one in which the applicant has presently approached this Court.
17. The fourth order on which the present applicant relied was passed on 12.08.2022 in the case of Supertech Limited -vs- Emerald [2024] 3 S.C.R. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr. Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors. [MA No.1918 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No.5041 of 2021]. The Coordinate Bench of this Court granted extension of time, as sought by the applicant therein, in effecting demolition of two building towers which were approved by the Court while disposing of the civil appeal. The power to extend time beyond that fixed by a Court on a legitimate ground is incorporated in Section 148 of the Code. If the time to do something requires to be extended, it would be within the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to go beyond the maximum period of 30 days prescribed in the aforesaid Section, after sufficient reason is shown. Section 112 of the Code itself provides that nothing contained in the Code shall affect the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 or any other provision of the Constitution.
18. The fifth order referred to by the applicant was passed on 23.07.2021 in the case of Union of India -vs- Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India and Ors. [MA No.83 of 2021 in MA (D) No. 9887 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No.6328-6399 of 2015]. A miscellaneous application had been filed for modification of the content of judgment dated 1st September 2020 passed in M.A. (D) No. 9887 of 2020 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6328-6399 of 2015. In the said proceeding, clarification was also sought on the aspect that the judgment did not bar the Union of India from considering and rectifying the clerical/arithmetical errors in computation of certain dues. This was again an Order, in substance, permitting rectification of an arithmetic error, which is implicit in Section 152 of the Code read with Order XII Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules.
19. We have indicated in the earlier part of this judgment that Dr. Singhvi had expressed his desire to withdraw the present application on the last date of hearing, i.e., 24.01.2024. Ordinarily, we would not have had set out the background leading to the filing of the present application and the course of the application that was taken before this Court in view of such submission. 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. We, however, decided not to permit such simpliciter withdrawal, as the Rajasthan Discoms sought imposition of costs. Secondly, in our opinion, 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 1042 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 (supra) deals with this question and in our opinion, the ratio of the said judgment would apply to the present proceeding as well.
20. We felt it necessary to examine the question about maintainability of the present application as we are of the view that it was necessary to spell out the position of law as to when such post-disposal miscellaneous applications can be entertained after a matter is disposed of. 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.
21. Our attention was drawn to an order passed on 14.12.2022 in which a Coordinate Bench was of the prima facie opinion that the applicant may be entitled to LPS as per Article 8.3.5 of PPA-2010, at least from 31.08.2020, till the actual payment was made pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the contempt proceedings. This prima facie view was expressed in the course of hearing of the present application only. We have examined the issue in greater detail. As we have already indicated, the 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 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr. had been issued by this Court. Hence the Coordinate Bench decided not to address that question in the contempt proceedings. In this judgement, we have already quoted the observations regarding the question of LPS made by the Contempt Court on 25.02.2022 and 19.04.2022. Despite that question being left open by the Contempt Court, we are of the view that 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.
22. So far as the observations made in the order passed in the present proceedings on 14.12.2022 are concerned, they were made only at a prima facie stage and do not have binding effect at the hearing stage. Moreover, the question whether such a prayer could be made in an application labeled as a “Miscellaneous Application” taken out in connection with a set of appeals which have been finally decided, does not appear to have been considered by this Court at the time of making of the order dated 14.12.2022. The order of this Court does not reflect any discussion on the issue of maintainability of the present application. It also does not appear to us that the maintainability issue was raised at that stage. Thus, mere making of such observations cannot be construed to mean that this Court found such application to be maintainable.
23. We, accordingly, dismiss the present application. This application was listed before us on several occasions and for that reason we impose costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the applicant to be remitted to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case: Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor Application dismissed (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)