The Supreme Court on Friday (August 14) imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on Reliance Industries Ltd. for prolonging a 20-year-old commercial suit filed by NTPC. The cost imposed was directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe strongly disapproved of RIL's litigation strategy, noting that the suit filed in 2005 is still at the evidence stage, with the company raising objections at every turn.

“The following facts would reveal that the power of the RIL to litigate and obstruct progress of the suit seems unlimited. There is no dearth of financial resources, no obligation to aid and assist the court to cope with pending backlog of cases, perhaps it is lucrative for RIL to raise some objection or the other at every stage and when the trial court rejects it, the appellate and special leave jurisdictions open up…it is compelling for us to note that the suit filed by NTPC way back in 2005 has not progressed much. At every stage there has been obstruction… In all, two decades have passed by and the suit is still at the stage of evidence.”, the Court observed.

The dispute arises out of a 2005 suit filed by NTPC against Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) seeking specific performance of a natural gas supply agreement. Despite being pending for more than 20 years, the suit has not proceeded beyond the evidence stage.

During the course of the proceedings, RIL filed a series of applications and appeals challenging various procedural orders. First, it sought discovery of NTPC's internal documents, but the application was rejected by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench as a belated "fishing enquiry." RIL subsequently attempted to introduce its own internal documents on record, but that request was also rejected, and its challenge before the Supreme Court was later withdrawn.

In the latest round, NTPC sought redaction of portions of an affidavit filed by an RIL witness on the ground that they contained privileged and inadmissible internal communications. The High Court directed redaction of the internal communications while retaining portions reflecting the witness's personal perception and state of mind. RIL challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

Dismissing RIL's appeal, the Court observed that the suit had remained stalled for two decades because "at every stage there has been obstruction".

The Court expressed displeasure regarding the pace of the proceedings, noting that despite its earlier order passed in 2019, no effective steps were taken for the disposal of the suit. “Seven years have passed since this Court directed the suit to be disposed of in nine months.”, the Court said.

“It is compelling for us to reiterate such a direction and request the High Court to take up and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. High Court will take note that permitting a party to a suit to prolong the litigation is also a sad reflection of the way courts conduct their proceedings.”, the Court said.

“…the appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10 lakhs payable by the appellant-RIL to Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association. The amount shall be paid within a period of five weeks from today.”, the Court held.

Cause Title: RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS NTPC LIMITED

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 806

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv. Ms. Sonali Basu Parekh, Adv. Mr. Rubin Vakil, Adv. Mr. Ishan Nagar, Adv. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Rishit Badiani, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Dave, Adv. Mr. Ketan Dave, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Gangal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Thakral, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Krishna Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Aditi, Adv. Mr. Nidhiram Sharma, Adv. Mr. Adith Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Suvasita Chopra, Adv. M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Rishir Daulat, Adv. Ms. Bindu Saxena, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Swarup, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Swarup, AOR