New Delhi: Two prominent senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Dushyant Dave got into a heated exchange before a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court Wednesday, during the hearing on the dispute between Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) and Adani Power regarding late payment of surcharge.
Dave, who represented JVVNL, termed the application filed, without filing review of an apex court judgment, by Adani Power as an "absolute abuse". A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar was hearing the matter. The sparring unfolded as Singhvi, representing Adani Power, sought to move a miscellaneous application in the case concerning allegations by discom that an application by Adani Power was listed before the apex court despite a final judgment in the main case.
Dave said it is leading to a serious amount of heartburn because the review period is 30 days and they did not file an application for review because they knew review is not maintainable.
"You allow the review period to get over…contempt is disposed of and order is complied with. Then, two and a half years later (application is filed) in the garb of modification….," said Dave. Singhvi said Dave has thrown a lot of heat and but not thrown any light while making his submissions.
Dave said light only comes from those who are doctoral and I am not. Dave pressed that they had committed fraud in filing the application and urged the court to dismiss it.
Singhvi said miscellaneous application is maintainable, but if lordships say otherwise, I will withdraw for appropriate remedies. Dave again pressed on the delay of over two years. "Allow the applicant to open and allow him to talk nonsense for a while…," said Singhvi. Dave said it is not nonsense and the judgment of the Supreme Court is not nonsense Dr Singhvi and "I take strong exception, it is a judgment, duly delivered judgment of this court and you call it nonsense."
Singhvi replied "cheap dramatic! I said, allow me to give my nonsense" and added that he did not call the court's judgment nonsense and responding to Dave's submissions, added "it is nonsensical to say that". Singhvi said, "allow me to spew my nonsense and allow the lordships to correct it, that is what I said and my learned friend loves to deliberately mishear…..".
The court asked Singhvi that the main point is late payment surcharge. Singhvi requested the court to allow him to explain without interruption from Dave, who every time wants to throw heat and not light. "I am not capable; you are the best lawyer of this country. Throw light how this (is) maintainable", Dave told Singhvi. Singhvi said, thumping the desk and shouting, what is all this?
"We aren't here to be browbeaten by anyone," taking strong objection to Dave’s statement, said Singhvi. The apex court was hearing a dispute pertaining to the allegation by JVVNL that the application had been filed by Adani Power despite a final judgment in the case. After a detailed hearing, the apex court reserved its judgment in the matter.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court got irked with its registry for not listing a matter related to Adani Power despite a judicial order. At the beginning of the proceedings, the apex court asked senior advocate Dushyant Dave about the Adani Power case.
Dave, said when lawyers associated with him approached the registry and asked about the matter, officials there said they had no instructions for listing it. "If the government were to ignore the court's orders, it would be treated as contempt, but when the registry defies the court's orders, should it not be viewed seriously?" Dave asked the bench.
The bench said it wanted to know at whose behest the registry had not listed the case for hearing and summoned a registry official to the court and discussed the matter with him in the chambers.
Earlier, JVVNL, a power distribution company wholly-owned and run by Rajasthan government, had written a letter to the Supreme Court Secretary General seeking an enquiry into the listing of an application filed by Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL) in a case already decided by the apex court two years ago.
- " class="align-text-top noRightClick twitterSection" data="">
