- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Environment and Criminal Law topic(s)
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”), vide judgment dated 06.04.2026 in Review Petition No. 5 of 2025 in Appeal No. 126 of 20221 (“Review Petition”) partly allowed the Review Petition granting carrying cost on liquidated damages while reaffirming the limited scope of intervention in review proceedings.
APTEL, while examining the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC reiterated that the power of review is confined to limited statutory grounds, namely discovery of new evidence which despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced earlier, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.
APTEL further reaffirmed that jurisdiction under review petition cannot be invoked to reargue the matter on merits or to secure a rehearing under the guise of correcting an error. Accordingly, issues not urged or consciously not pressed during the original proceedings cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in review.
APTEL further held that once the levy of liquidated damages was found to be unjustified, retention of such amount results in unjust enrichment and payment of interest is a logical corollary to restitution. It was observed that restitution necessarily entails restoring the affected party to the same economic position that it would have occupied had the wrongful levy not occurred and held that the non-granting of carrying cost constituted an error apparent on the face of record.
Footnote
1. RP No. 5 of 2025 in Appeal No. 126 of 2022.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
