'Won't Tolerate Allegation That Court Recorded Lawyer's Statement Which Was Never Made' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Litigant

The Supreme Court on Monday reprimanded the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. for alleging that the Court recorded in its order a statement by the lawyer, even though the lawyer never made such a statement.A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval of the allegations made against the Court. “We are shocked to read allegations made in the applications. The allegation made is that, though we have recorded statement of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, in fact, no such statement was made before us. We are shocked to know that such allegations are being made against the court, and that also in absence of the lawyers who were present on that day."The Bench strongly condemned the allegations, stating, "This is an allegation directly made against the court, that we have recorded a statement which was not made across the bar. We deprecate such tendency on the part of the applicants. Moreover, the advocates who appeared on that day have not shown their face today."The Court dictated that it was imposing a cost ot Rs 5 lakhs on the Corporation for making such allegations.BackgroundThe case stemmed from a dispute over tariffs set by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission for renewable energy generators between April 1, 2004, and March 31, 2009. The Commission's orders were challenged before the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, which, in December 2012, decided the tariff and ordered that interest on arrears payable to renewable energy developers be set at 12% compounded quarterly.The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. challenged this decision in a 2013 batch of appeals before the Supreme Court. On May 17, 2024, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals after the parties present agreed to modify the ruling by reducing the interest rate from 12 percent to 9 percent. The Court recorded in its order that the counsel for the appellants, including the Transmission Corporation, assured that payments under the modified judgment would be made within six weeks.The Transmission Corporation later filed two Miscellaneous Applications challenging the May 17, 2024, order.Supreme Court proceedingsDuring Monday's hearing, the counsel for Telangana argued that after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the appeal's cause title was amended, and any statement by the lawyer for the Transmission Corporation would not bind Telangana, as there is a separate company for Telangana now. He further contended that the lawyer never made the statement and had only represented Andhra Pradesh since he did not hold a vakalatnama for Telangana.Justice Oka noted that the lawyer had appeared and made a statement on behalf of all appellants on May 17, 2024, but had now filed applications contradicting it.The counsel for Andhra Pradesh argued that the lawyer had instructions only for simple interest, not compound interest.Justice Oka asked whether the applicants were alleging that the Court had mistakenly recorded a statement that was never made. He sought clarification on who had appeared for the applicants on May 17, 2024. However, the lawyers present on Monday disagreed on whether the Advocate on Record for the Transmission Corporation had appeared that day.At this point, the counsels for both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana urged the judges to dismiss the applications and not consider them as imputations against themselves.In its order, The Court observed, “The question is, when the court reposits faith in the lawyers appearing before the court and passes an order, now we are called upon to make an inquiry into the question who appeared for which appellant, whether really such a statement was made before us.". The Court stated that if such allegations were to be made against it, the only option would be to recall the order dated May 17, 2024, and restore the appeals. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed each applicant to pay a cost of Rs. 5 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.Reiterating his distress, Justice Oka remarked, “21 years I have worked in constitutional court for the first time this allegation is made that though lawyer did not make a statement I have recorded. Sad state of affairs. Why should we try tolerate such allegation made at the fag end of my career? Now I have to be very careful. Hereafter I'll not trust any lawyer. I will take affidavit from the client. We don't want to waste time in making inquiry into who appeared on that day. Worst allegation I have faced in my career of 22 years.”Case no. – Diary No. 33638-2024Case Title – Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. And Ors. Etc. v. M/S SLS Power Ltd. and Ors. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 183Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Won't Tolerate Allegation That Court Recorded Lawyer's Statement Which Was Never Made' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Litigant

Amisha Shrivastava

Justice Oka orally said that it was the worst allegation against the Court.

Tags