The Supreme Court has set aside a review order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), holding that the Tribunal had breached judicial discipline and violated Article 141 of the Constitution by reopening an issue already settled by the Supreme Court concerning the inclusion of Damodar Valley Corporation’s (DVC) Sinking Fund in electricity tariff determination. The Court held that both depreciation and contributions to the Sinking Fund can be recovered through electricity tariff, as permitted by the DVC Act and the Tariff Regulations.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the Tribunal had exceeded the permissible scope of review by reconsidering whether DVC could claim both depreciation on capital assets created using bond proceeds and contributions to the Sinking Fund as expenses recoverable through tariff.
The dispute concerned tariff determination for DVC for the period 2009–2014. In Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation (2018) 8 SCC 281, the Supreme Court had previously upheld the treatment of the Sinking Fund as an item of expenditure recoverable through tariff, alongside depreciation, under the statutory framework governing DVC.
The Court observed that the Tribunal had allowed a review petition after more than five years, despite the issue having been settled by the Supreme Court. It reiterated that a review cannot be used to correct an allegedly erroneous decision through a fresh examination of the merits or a different interpretation of the law. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and cannot be established through a lengthy process of reasoning.
Describing the Tribunal’s approach as a blatant breach of judicial discipline and a violation of Article 141, the Court set aside the review order and restored APTEL’s original order dated May 17, 2019, which had upheld the inclusion of the Sinking Fund in tariff.
The Court also imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on Maithan Alloys Limited, the review petitioner, and ₹1.5 lakh on Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), which had intervened in the appeal. The amounts are to be paid to DVC within one month, failing which interest at 18% per annum will apply.
Appearances
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shri Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Kanika Chugh, Adv. Mr. Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Nihal Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Priya Dhankhar, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Ms. Khushi, Adv. Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kamana Divya Sree, Adv. Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv. Ms. Solanki Das, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Samajdar, Adv. Mr. Atul Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Yadav, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Adv

