NABHA POWER LIMITED versus PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 09-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 713 : 2023 INSC 883
713
CASE DETAILS
NABHA POWER LIMITED
v.
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 2425 of 2023 Etc.)
OCTOBER 09, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND 
ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The dispute, pertaining to recovery of 
deductions of monthly tariff  by the respondent was dealt by the Supreme 
Court in Nabha Power Limited (NPL) v. Punjab State Power Corporation 
Limited (PSPCL) and Anr. [2017] 14 SCR 301: (2018) 11 SCC 508 dated 
05.10.2017, whether same issue has been raised again.
Cost – Imposition of – After Nabha Power Limited (NPL) v. Punjab 
State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and Anr. judgment, the 
respondent fi led various applications before the Supreme Court – Two 
Contempt petitions were also fi led by the appellant for the compliance 
of the above said judgment – The Contempt Petitions were disposed of 
with a direction to the respondent to pay the amount as a result of the 
order – Petitions was also fi led before the Regulatory Commission – The 
submission of the appellant before the Supreme Court was that all the 
issues were dealt with earlier in the judgment as well as in the various 
applications fi led by the respondent:
Held: When issues were examined, the Court found that the same thing 
being raked up again and again only as an endeavour to not make payments, 
till in the Contempt proceedings they were compelled to make payment 
– The liberty granted by the order dated 09.03.2021 (Second Contempt 
petition) cannot be construed to seek refund of the amount paid under the 
orders passed by this Court from time to time – What was noticed was that 
some aspect was raised which was really in the nature of fresh dispute – The 
Court did not preclude the respondents from raising ‘all future disputes’ but 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
that cannot be to unsettle the eff ect on the main judgment dated 05.10.2017 
abundantly clarifi ed from time to time – Finding themselves helpless in the 
face of the Second Contempt and with possibility of serious consequences, 
they sought to wriggle out of the consequences arisen by off ering to make 
payment – The payments were made in terms of the imprimatur granted by 
this Court as to the quantum and, thus, what was sought to be done was to 
really reopen the same issue – The impugned order has simply maintained 
the petition and that would mean another round of litigation, and this is being 
continuing since the judgment in 2017 for the last six years – There is no 
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order, innocuous 
as it may seem, is not sustainable and this is yet another endeavour of 
the respondent to wriggle out of its obligation under the judgment dated 
05.10.2017, repeatedly explained by various orders – In fact, the judgment 
dated 05.10.2017 itself dealt with the legal principles for interpretation of 
commercial contract exhaustively and those principles were then applied to 
the contract in question – The pricing of the coal was found to be the crux 
of the problem, which was adjudicated upon – It is this very issue which is 
sought to be raked up again – This Court considers to modulate and quantify 
the cost in favour of appellants-Nabha Power Limited and Talwandi Sabo 
Power Limited at Rs.40.00 lakhs and Rs.25.00 lakhs, respectively. [Paras 
20, 21, 22, 23]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Nabha Power Limited (NPL) v. Punjab State Power Corporation 
Limited (PSPCL) and Anr. (2018) 11 SCC 508 : [2017] 14 SCR 301 – 
referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2425 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2022 of the Punjab State 
Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chandigarh in PN No.49 of 2021.
With
Civil Appeal No. 2426 of 2023.
715
Appearances:
Mukul Rohatgi, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Parag P. Tripathi, Maninder Singh, 
Sr. Advs., Mahesh Agarwal,   Anshuman Srivastava, Ankit Prasoon, Avishkar 
Singhvi, Nishant Rao, Ms. Priya Dhankar, Varun,  Vivek Kumar Singh, 
Aditiya, E. C. Agrawala, Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Anish Kapur, Ms. Nikhita 
Suri, Ms. Pankhuri Budhiraja, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
C. Aryama Sundaram,  M.G. Ramachandran, Sr. Advs., Anand K. 
Ganesan, Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal, Amal Nair, Abhishek Gupta, 
Ms. Srishti Khindaria, Ms. Shivani Verma, Aneesh Bajaj, Advs. for the 
Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.