Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Damodar Valley Corporation vs Maithan Alloys Limited on 14 October, 2025
1
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No.11106/2024
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MAITHAN ALLOYS LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.236985/2024-EX-PARTE STAY)
Date : 14-10-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Appellant(s) :
Mr. 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. Deepeika Kalia, Adv.
Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Rajiv Yadav, AOR
Mr. Ratnesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR
Ms. Aakriti Goel, Adv.
Ms. Kriti Jain, Adv.
Ms. Kamana Divya Sree, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.10.14 16:40:06 IST Reason:
1. Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Rajiv Shakhder, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondent 2 No.5 – Steel Authority of India Limited and Mr. Rajiv Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 – Maithan Alloys Limited.
2. In the course of today’s hearing, we invited the attention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant to Para 23 of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The same reads thus:-
“According to the petitioner, since the payment of debt raised from issuance of bond is already being ensured through “(a)” hereinabove i.e. contribution to sinking fund, allowing depreciation on capital assets created by utilising bond amount clearly makes out a case of “duplication” or “double allowance” which cannot be permitted and this Tribunal has fallen into a patent error in not recognizing the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the DVC can be allowed either (a) or (b) and not both.”
3. The plain reading of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, referred to above, indicates that the Tribunal was much concerned about the duplication or double allowance which the appellant – herein is deriving and which according to the Tribunal is not permissible in law.
4. We direct a responsible officer of the appellant to file an affidavit explaining why the Tribunal is not correct in saying that it is a case of duplication or double allowance.
5. Let such affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks from today.
6. One copy of the affidavit shall be served well in advance to all the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. Post this matter for final disposal on 18-11-2025 on top of the Board.
8. If any of the respondents would like to respond to the affidavit that may be filed on behalf of the appellant, they may do so at the earliest.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)