Supreme Court: Review order set aside, tribunal’s original tariff decision restored

The Supreme Court, by a two‑judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, allowed the appeal filed by Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and set aside the Electricity Appellate Tribunal’s review order dated 2019, thereby restoring the Tribunal’s original finding that depreciation and sinking‑fund contributions could be recovered as tariff‑allowable expenses for the 2009‑2014 period.

Damodar Valley Corporation had sought inclusion of both depreciation under Section 40 of the DVC Act and a sinking‑fund contribution under Regulation 43(2009) as recoverable components of its electricity tariff for the five‑year span. The Tribunal initially permitted both items, but on a subsequent review it held that allowing the two together amounted to an impermissible double benefit and altered its order. DVC challenged this review, contending that the Tribunal lacked authority to revisit its earlier decision and that the statutory scheme expressly allowed both recoveries.

The Court examined the fourth proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, which incorporates provisions of the DVC Act that are not inconsistent, and found that Regulation 43(2009) expressly authorises recovery of both depreciation and sinking‑fund contributions. It further held that the criteria for invoking a review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Electricity Act and Order 47 Rule 1 were not satisfied, rendering the Tribunal’s review order ultra vires. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the review, reinstated the 2019 Tribunal order and awarded exemplary costs against the respondents.

Read the judgment and its head note on DLJ: Damodar Valley Corporation vs Maithan Alloys Limited (2026 INSC 1178).