The Supreme Court on 30 Oct 2026 set aside the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s review order and reinstated the May 17 2019 tariff order for Damodar Valley Corporation. The judgment clarifies that a tribunal cannot overrule a Supreme Court precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. It directly affects DVC’s tariff recovery and imposes cost liabilities on Maithan Alloys and Steel Authority of India Limited. The ruling also limits APTEL’s authority to revisit matters already decided by the apex court.

Full News Breakdown

The dispute originated from DVC’s tariff calculation for the 2009‑2014 period, specifically whether the sinking fund and depreciation could be recovered together. APTEL later issued a review order that reversed its own 2019 decision, creating a conflict with an earlier Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court intervened, declared the review ultra vires, restored the original order, and sanctioned the parties that sought the review.

• Case Name: Damodar Valley Corporation v. Maithan Alloys Ltd.

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran

• Date: 30 Oct 2026

• Statutes Cited: Section 40, Damodar Valley Corporation Act; Regulation 43, 2009 CERC Tariff Regulations; Article 141, Constitution of India

• Key Provisions: Section 40 permits recovery of sinking fund through tariff; Regulation 43 permits depreciation recovery; Article 141 gives binding effect to Supreme Court decisions

• Primary Legal Issue: Whether APTEL could review and reverse its own earlier order contrary to a Supreme Court precedent

• Petitioner Arguments: DVC contended that the review was illegal, breached judicial discipline, and that both sinking fund and depreciation recovery are permissible under the cited provisions

• Respondent Arguments: Maithan Alloys alleged a double benefit to DVC; SAIL intervened supporting the same claim

• Court's Reasoning: The review breached Article 141, amounted to an abuse of process, and the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court

• Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision; such a review is ultra vires and constitutes an abuse of process

• Operative Order: Set aside APTEL’s review order, restore the May 17 2019 order, impose costs of ₹2 lakh on Maithan Alloys and ₹1.5 lakh on SAIL payable to DVC within a month, with interest on default

• Practical Outcome: DVC’s tariff remains in force; the sanctioned parties must pay the costs promptly

How Does This Affect You?

Previously, practitioners faced uncertainty about whether a specialised tribunal could revisit a matter already settled by the Supreme Court. The Court now holds that any tribunal review that conflicts with a Supreme Court precedent is ultra vires and an abuse of process. As a result, parties can no longer rely on APTEL reviews to overturn Supreme Court‑settled tariff issues and must either pursue a direct appeal or accept the existing order, while cost sanctions deter frivolous reviews. This clarification informs the guidance below for lawyers, students, and businesses.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Review all pending APTEL review petitions and advise clients that if the subject matter has been addressed by a Supreme Court judgment, the petition is likely to be dismissed as ultra vires.

• Amend drafting templates for tariff petitions to expressly cite the Supreme Court precedent on sinking‑fund and depreciation recovery, thereby pre‑empting any tribunal challenge.

• Cite the 2026 decision as binding authority when arguing that APTEL lacks jurisdiction to revisit Supreme Court‑settled issues in future litigation.

• Warn clients that pursuing a review after a Supreme Court ruling exposes them to cost orders, as demonstrated by the ₹2 lakh and ₹1.5 lakh sanctions.

• Update internal precedent matrices to flag any APTEL decisions that conflict with Supreme Court jurisprudence, ensuring compliance teams identify such conflicts before filing.

For Law Students

This case illustrates how the Supreme Court enforces hierarchical supremacy by barring tribunals from contravening its own precedents.
The core doctrine is the binding effect of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Constitution.

The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Constitutional hierarchy and judicial discipline

• Power of specialised tribunals versus apex court

• Interpretation of Section 40 DVC Act and Regulation 43 CERC Tariff Regulations

• Cost sanctions as a tool for procedural compliance

• Review jurisdiction under the APTEL Act

Comparing Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd. (2018) with this 2026 judgment shows how the Court consistently applies Article 141 to limit tribunal discretion, while the earlier Satyam Power v. CERC (2020) highlights the boundaries of statutory interpretation in tariff disputes.

For Businesses

• Power generation companies must ensure that tariff filings reference the Supreme Court’s ruling on sinking‑fund and depreciation recovery, otherwise their submissions may be rejected by APTEL.

• Board‑level committees of public sector undertakings should review any pending APTEL review applications and withdraw those that overlap with Supreme Court decisions to avoid cost penalties.

• Compliance officers in regulated utilities need to update internal checklists to verify that all tariff calculations are consistent with Section 40 of the DVC Act and Regulation 43, reducing exposure to tribunal reversal.

• Financial institutions financing power projects should reassess risk models to reflect that tribunal‑level challenges to tariff recoveries are now limited, affecting cash‑flow projections.

Key Takeaways

• A tribunal cannot overrule a Supreme Court judgment; such a review is ultra vires under Article 141.

• Lawyers must screen APTEL review petitions for conflict with Supreme Court precedent and discontinue any that are barred.

• Courts can now impose cost sanctions for filing prohibited reviews, reinforcing procedural discipline.

• Monitor the forthcoming amendment to the APTEL Act expected in the next parliamentary session, which may codify the Supreme Court’s interpretation.

• In‑house counsel should audit all active tariff disputes and withdraw any APTEL reviews before the next filing deadline to avoid sanctions.

Source: Tribunal has gone haywire: Supreme Court slams APTEL for ignoring binding precedent