Briefing Counsels, Law Firms Must Verify Case Laws Cited;Senior Counsel Can't Be Expected To Check Their Finality : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the briefing lawyers and law firms must verify the case laws before citing them, highlighting that relying on decisions which are under review may mislead adjudicatory process. “The instructing and briefing counsels/law firms, are expected to diligently and sincerely verify authorities before they cite them in a Court. Reliance upon a decision that is under review or appeal, without disclosing such pendency, amounts to lack of candour to the Court and may mislead the adjudicatory process,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said. The Court observed that such conduct by lawyers falls short of the standard of fairness and completeness that is expected from officers of the Court.“The justice delivery system functions on mutual trust between the Bar and the Bench. Each stakeholder, the litigant, the counsel, and the Court, bears a shared responsibility towards upholding its integrity. Any lapse, diminishes confidence in the system as a whole,” the Court said. Justice Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by ReNew Wind Energy (AP2) Pvt. Ltd, an energy generating company, seeking to restrain Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI), from unilaterally deducting amounts from its monthly invoices.The SECI had issued a notice on 02.05.2025 alleging that ReNew failed to meet the minimum required energy generation of 946.08 MUs for FY 2024-25, achieving only 632 MUs. It had demanded compensation under Article 4.4.1 of the Power Purchase Agreement executed between them. The SECI stated that failing payment, it would deduct the amount from the next monthly invoice.ReNew argued that the shortfall arose due to force majeure events under Article 4.4.3, claiming exemption from liability. The petition was then filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking to restrain SECI from making deductions pending arbitration .SECI opposed the plea saying that it was not maintainable as the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) pursuant to Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act.It was contended that only CERC can adjudicate or refer such disputes to arbitration. Dismissing the petition as not maintainable, Justice Kaurav held that the power of the CERC to refer a dispute involving generating companies or transmission licensee for arbitration prevails over the referral powers of a Court or authority other than the CERC, under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act. It added that the CERC has the exclusive power and prerogative under Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act to refer disputes concerning generating companies or transmission licensee for arbitration.The judge rejected the petitioner company's submission that CERC's jurisdiction is attracted only when a dispute relates to tariff. It was argued that since the dispute in the instant case did not relate to tariff, the CERC was precluded from determining whether it relates to tariff or not. To buttress the claim, the petitioner relied upon a judgement of the CERC passed in 2023.The Court noted that the order was canvassed and used by the petitioner in its note, being oblivious to the fact that a review was pending against the said judgement of the CERC.“After the judgement in the instant case was reserved vide order dated 10.10.2025, this Court on its own accord discovered that the Review Petition No. 38/RP/2023 in Petition No. 252/MP/2021 was admitted vide order dated 17.05.2024 and that the judgement in the said review was reserved vide order dated 16.09.2025. Subsequently, whilst the present judgement remained reserved, the final order dismissing the said review petition was delivered by the CERC on 27.10.2025,” the Court noted. “It is true that the review petition now stands dismissed and the Supreme Court in the SLP proceedings has not stayed the operation of the High Court judgement. Indeed, nothing presently turns on these disclosures. However, at the time of reliance, the petitioner could not have known whether the review would be allowed or rejected; had it been allowed, the petitioner would have been citing an order later set aside in review,” the Court added.Justice Kaurav said that such disclosures are expected from parties, seeking to rely on a decision as laying down the correct position of law.It was observed that the Court does not expect senior counsels to personally investigate each judgement which they would cite before a court of law and to check whether a review, appeal or revision is pending against them, but such duty rests upon the counsel or firm instructing them. “…. it is hereby concluded that the CERC has the power to refer a dispute, which falls outside the scope of Section 79(1)(a)-(d), for arbitration when there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement involving generating companies or transmission licensee. This power needs to be mandatorily exercised, and the party seeking the referral has, in such a situation, a right to be...

Briefing Counsels, Law Firms Must Verify Case Laws Cited;Senior Counsel Can't Be Expected To Check Their Finality : Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

The Court observed that citing case laws without disclosing appeal/review pending against them could be misleading.

Tags