Supreme Court Rejects Karnataka Discoms Plea on Adani Power

AI FEED

The Supreme Court declined to stay ₹1,005 crore in Adani Power invoices disputed by Karnataka electricity distribution companies.
The court upheld APTEL’s refusal to suspend the payment demand and directed a final decision within three months.
Karnataka discoms had argued that the claimed amount was wrongly raised and that payment could create financial hardship.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Adani Power Karnataka discoms dispute has taken a significant turn after the top court refused to interfere with an order requiring Karnataka’s electricity distribution companies to pay the entire ₹1,005 crore amount claimed by Adani Power.

A bench led by Justice PS Narasimha declined to stay the invoices, effectively leaving the earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in place. The court, however, directed APTEL to pronounce its final order in the matter within three months.

The dispute centres on whether Karnataka’s power distribution companies are liable for additional financial charges claimed by Adani Power in connection with differential electricity payments.

Supreme Court Adani Power Karnataka Discoms Dispute

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) had ruled in 2023 that the Karnataka discoms were liable to pay carrying costs on differential amounts, along with a late payment surcharge.

Carrying cost represents the financing cost associated with money that remains unpaid for a period. CERC had permitted the payment through six instalments, with late payment surcharge applicable if the prescribed terms were not followed.

Adani Power subsequently approached the commission alleging that the discoms had not complied with the payment directions. The dispute eventually reached APTEL and then the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Adani Power Karnataka Discoms Case Moves to Final Hearing

The Karnataka discoms, led by Power Company of Karnataka, challenged the demand and maintained that no amount was actually due.

They argued that APTEL had wrongly refused to stay what they described as a “perverse” CERC order without properly examining the merits of the dispute.

The discoms also warned that any restriction or regulation of electricity supply because of the disputed payment could cause serious financial and operational consequences for both the utilities and their consumers.

According to their petition, the companies had been left with little choice but to pay the disputed amount under protest to prevent any potential interruption in electricity supply. They argued that the resulting financial burden could make it difficult to meet other legitimate expenses unless the payment was eventually reversed.

₹1,005 Crore Adani Power Invoice Dispute Explained

The immediate effect of the Supreme Court’s order is that the stay sought by Karnataka’s electricity distributors has not been granted. The payment direction therefore remains in place while the broader legal dispute continues before APTEL.

The Supreme Court’s three-month deadline for APTEL is significant because it places a clear timeline on the next stage of the proceedings.

The case also highlights the financial pressures that can emerge between electricity generators and distribution companies when disputes arise over tariffs, carrying costs and delayed payments.