Read Supreme Court’s order imposing cost of ₹ 5 lakh for withdrawing Appeals
The Supreme Court of India has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakh on two public sector corporations for withdrawing appeals without circulating a letter before the Bench intimating it of the withdrawal.
The bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and NV Ramana has imposed this cost on Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd and NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd for a leave to withdraw their appeals filed against Essar Poswer MP Ltd.
Listed as item 12 before the bench on October 1, 2012, when the matter was called for hearing, appellants’ counsel sought permission to withdraw the case. However, presiding judge, Justice Gogoi was irked by the fact that no letter was circulated to intimate the bench of the withdrawal. Justice Gogoi said:
You cannot come and go like this as per your wishes. I had read 800 pages and now you want to withdraw the petition. [via Bar&Bench]
Court then ordered that if the case is to be withdrawn, it shall be at a condition of payment of a cost of Rs. 5 lakh. It ordered:
1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeals. We are reluctant. In any case leave to withdraw the appeals cannot be unconditional in view of the judicial time expended. Consequently, leave is granted subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh) to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today.
2. Appeals are ordered as above.
|Case 1||Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2015
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v. Essar Poswer MP Ltd. & Ors
|Case 2||Civil Appeal No. 4210 of 2015
NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd v. Essar Poswer MP Ltd. & Ors
The two appeals were filed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the judgment dated April 16, 2015 of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi in Appeal No. 51 of 2015.
On May 11, 2015, the same bench had issued notice in the matter without granting a stay at that time. When the matter was sought to be withdrawn on October 1, matter was listed before the Court in the category of ‘Incomplete After Notice/Adjourned Matters’.
Latest posts by Mohit Singh (see all)
- “Video conferencing cannot be directed in transfer petition” holds SC by 2:1, overrules Krishna Veni Nagam - October 9, 2017
- SC asks Centre, social media websites on AoR’s petition for keeping Indians’ data in India - September 7, 2017
- PIL before SC seeks J Lodha Panel’s recommendations to be declared unconstitutional + reference to 7 judge bench - January 6, 2017