Review Is Not a Second Appeal: Damodar Valley Corporation v Maithan Alloys Ltd (2026 INSC 1178)

On 30 October 2026, the Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in a review petition that had waited about five years for a hearing. The Court called the Tribunal's order a blatant breach of judicial discipline.

The case is Damodar Valley Corporation v Maithan Alloys Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11106 of 2024, reported as 2026 INSC 1178. The bench was J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., and K. Vinod Chandran, J. wrote the judgment. The subject is electricity tariff, but the lesson is general: what a review court can and cannot do. That makes it useful for the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam.

The dispute in short

The Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) is a statutory body under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (the DVC Act). The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) fixed its tariff for the period 2009 to 2014 under the Electricity Act, 2003, the DVC Act and the Tariff Regulations of 2009.

Consumers appealed to APTEL, which upheld the CERC order on 17 May 2019. It relied on an earlier Supreme Court decision, Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited v Damodar Valley Corporation, (2018) 8 SCC 281. That decision had already dealt with how depreciation and the Sinking Fund (money set aside to redeem DVC's bonds) are treated in DVC's tariff.

One appellant before APTEL then filed a review. It stayed pending for about five years. In 2024, APTEL allowed it and held that DVC could claim only one of two items: the Sinking Fund contribution, or depreciation on assets created with bond money. DVC appealed, and Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) intervened.

What the Supreme Court held

The Supreme Court held that the review order was wrong in law. It restored APTEL's original order dated 17 May 2019. The Court gave two connected reasons. First, APTEL had no power to use review to reopen what the Supreme Court had already decided. Second, even on its own terms, the review did not show any error apparent on the face of the record.

Read Blog: Charming Rupon v State of Meghalaya (2026)

Binding precedent under Article 141

Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys was a binding precedent under Article 141. In that case, the Supreme Court had found no fundamental flaw in the Tribunal's reasoning on depreciation and the Sinking Fund. The Court in this case agreed with that approach. It also said the issue of double benefit had been specifically considered in the original order.

The Court said Article 141 ensures that the decisions of the highest court are followed. It accepted the familiar remark that the Supreme Court is not infallible but is final, and that litigation needs finality.

The eight principles on review

The most useful part for exam preparation is the Court's reliance on State of West Bengal & Ors. v Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612. That case dealt with the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whose provision on review is similar to Section 122(f) of the Electricity Act. The Court summarised the principles from paragraph 35 of Kamal Sengupta. In plain words:

·        A tribunal's power of review is like a civil court's power under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

·        Review can be sought only on the grounds listed in Order 47 Rule 1.

·        The phrase any other sufficient reason is read in the light of the specified grounds.

·        An error that is not self-evident, and that needs a long process of reasoning to find, is not an error apparent on the face of the record.

·        A wrong order cannot be corrected under the cover of a review.

·        Review cannot rest on a later decision of a coordinate bench, a larger bench or a superior court.

·        Review is confined to the material that was available when the original decision was made.

·        Discovery of new matter is not enough. The party must show due diligence.

The Court held that the impugned decision fitted none of these principles. It also quoted the idea that a mistake or error apparent must be evident per se from the record and should not need detailed examination.

The money question: depreciation and the Sinking Fund

The technical issue was whether DVC can recover both depreciation and Sinking Fund contributions through tariff. The Court explained that under ordinary accounting, depreciation is a charge on profits, while a reserve fund for redeeming bonds is normally appropriated from net profit. The DVC Act departs from this scheme.

Section 40(1) of the DVC Act requires provision for depreciation and reserve funds. Section 40(2) says net profit is worked out after that provision. Regulation 43 of the 2009 Tariff Regulations then treats the Section 40 funds as expenditure recoverable through tariff, and applies the depreciation rates set under Section 40.

The Court found the original findings of the Tribunal on depreciation and the Sinking Fund to be perfectly in order. It rejected the review order's distinction between assets built with bond funds and assets built from other sources, calling it an overstep of review jurisdiction.

The Court also examined the fourth proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, which deems DVC a licensee and keeps the DVC Act applicable so far as it is not inconsistent with the 2003 Act, read with Section 58 of the DVC Act. It agreed with Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys on how this proviso works.

Get the right guidance with the best online judiciary coaching. Strengthen your legal knowledge, revise Bare Acts, and practise regularly to move closer to your Civil Judge dream.

Judicial discipline and costs

The strongest language in the judgment is about discipline. The Court described the impugned order as being in blatant breach of judicial discipline and in clear violation of Article 141. It said the Tribunal had gone haywire and that the review was clearly illegal and totally misplaced.

It also noted that the impugned order treated the issue as one that had escaped the Supreme Court's notice. If anyone wanted to challenge the earlier view, the Court said, it should have been done in a properly brought appeal.

Two further observations stand out. The Court noted with some consternation that no appeals were filed to the Supreme Court against the 2019 order. And it said that one appellant waiting five years for a review to be heard was clearly an abuse of process of law.

The final directions were:

·        The impugned decision is set aside, and the Tribunal's order of 17 May 2019 is restored.

·        Costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the first respondent, Maithan Alloys Limited.

·        Costs of Rs. 1,50,000 on SAIL, for willingly participating in an order passed in breach of judicial discipline. The Court called SAIL ill-advised.

·        Both amounts are payable to DVC within one month, with interest at 18 per cent per annum on default.

How to use this in answers

For a question on review, write the Order 47 Rule 1 position first and then use Kamal Sengupta's principles as your checklist. Cite Damodar Valley Corporation v Maithan Alloys as a fresh example where a review was used as an appeal in disguise, and where a bench of a lower forum ignored a binding Supreme Court decision.

For a question on precedent, link it with Article 141. A subordinate forum cannot decline to follow the Supreme Court's ruling and cannot rewrite it through a review. This is also a good point for a candidate who will sit as a judge, because the judgment shows what the Supreme Court expects from lower courts and tribunals.

One caution: the electricity-law details here belong to a specific statute. Keep them brief in a general answer, and spend your words on the review principles.

Common Questions on the DVC Review Judgment

What is the citation of Damodar Valley Corporation v Maithan Alloys?

It is Civil Appeal No. 11106 of 2024, reported as 2026 INSC 1178, decided on 30 October 2026.

Who wrote the judgment?

K. Vinod Chandran, J., on a bench with J.B. Pardiwala, J.

What did APTEL do that the Supreme Court set aside?

In a review, it held that DVC could recover only one of two items, either the Sinking Fund contribution or depreciation on assets created with bond money.

Which earlier decision governed the issue?

Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited v Damodar Valley Corporation, (2018) 8 SCC 281, a binding precedent under Article 141.

Which case did the Court use for the principles of review?

State of West Bengal v Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, especially its summary of principles in paragraph 35.

Is an error that needs long reasoning an error apparent on the record?

No. The Court repeated that an error must be self-evident, not found through a long process of reasoning.

Can review be based on a later decision of a higher court?

No. The principles quoted say review cannot rest on a later decision of a coordinate bench, a larger bench or a superior court.

What did the Court say about the five-year delay in the review?

It said that one appellant waiting five years for the review to be heard was clearly an abuse of process of law.

What costs were imposed?

Rs. 2,00,000 on Maithan Alloys Limited and Rs. 1,50,000 on SAIL, payable to DVC within one month, with 18 per cent interest on default.

What is the main exam takeaway?

That a review is not an appeal. It is limited to Order 47 Rule 1 grounds, and a forum must follow binding Supreme Court precedent.

Where This Leaves Review Law

Damodar Valley Corporation v Maithan Alloys Ltd (2026 INSC 1178) is a fresh and quotable example of the limits of review. It also shows how strongly the Supreme Court insists on judicial discipline and on following Article 141. Keep the eight principles from Kamal Sengupta in your notes.

Nitesh Sir and the Aashayein Judiciary faculty track new Supreme Court judgments and turn them into short Judiciary Notes, PYQ-style questions and Mock Tests for the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam. For structured Judiciary Coaching, Online Judiciary Coaching and updated Judiciary Study Material, join Aashayein Judiciary today.