The Supreme Court was on Wednesday privy to a sharp exchange of words between Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and Abhishek Singhvi in a case involving Adani Power and related to late payment of dues [Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd]. .The sparring unfolded as Singhvi, appearing for Adani Power, sought to move a miscellaneous application (MA) in the case concerning allegations by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (discom) that an application by Adani Power was listed before the Supreme Court despite a final judgment in the main case."It is maintainable. MA can and will be filed. But if lordships say otherwise, I will withdraw for appropriate remedies," Singhvi said..Dave who was representing the discom, immediately objected, labeling the move as an abuse of the legal process."I object to this withdrawal symptom. This is an abuse of process," he said.In response, Singhvi asked for clarity on the specific law referenced and cautioned against the use of words like "abuse."Dave, however, asserted that Singhvi has misled the Court."You misled the Court! You cannot be granted this, not in larger public interest. ₹1,400 crores sought to be taken from State. They did not show observations of contempt bench," he said.Further, Dave accused Adani Power of 'playing with the kindness shown by the Court'. He highlighted that the company had not filed a review petition and that the findings against the company were by a three-judge bench, which could not be re-opened by a division bench."Appeals were partly allowed. This was never brought to your lordships' notice!" he added..The exchange took place before a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar. .In a 2020 judgment, the apex court had held that Adani Power was not entitled to the payment of Late Payment Surcharge (LPS). In terms of the same, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (discom) paid the entire amount due and the same was accepted by Adani Power.However, Adani later filed an application raising issue with the amount.In January last year, the discom addressed a letter to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court Registry pointing to the fact that this application was listed for orders on January 6, 2023, despite the final disposal of the case on August 31, 2020. The letter stated that the issue went to the root of the Registry’s integrity.Therefore, the letter claimed that the application by Adani Power was a clear attempt to review the 2020 judgment after a lapse of more than two years, that too without moving for condonation of delay.It further stated that while the discom had moved an application for review, which was dismissed in March 2021, Adani did not file any review petition.The Supreme Court had in January last year sought a report from the Registry on the allegations levelled by the discom about improper listing of the application by Adani Power despite a final judgment in the case.Yesterday, the Court had expressed its surprise at the matter not being listed despite definitive judicial orders providing for the same..During the hearing on Wednesday, Dave raised concerns about the application being registered against the Supreme Court Rules and questioned the subjectivity of the Registry's decisions.He underlined that there were judgments that have held that if MAs filed without filing a review petition, are not maintainable."Here, they allow review period to be over, then they file application of modification in garb of review and now they seek to withdraw. Can there be remedy against binding judgment of Supreme Court?" Dave questioned..As the exchange got more intense, the Court suggested a resolution outside the courtroom..Dave however insisted that the MA be dismissed."What if it is a street hawker? This application deserves to be dismissed. Applicant knows he is not entitled to relief. LPS was awarded and made equivalent to carrying costs," he said.On Singhvi's request to move the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity (APTEL), Dave said that Adani Power would be in contempt of court. Instead, he requested that costs of at least ₹1 crore to be imposed. He also suggested perjury proceedings against the company.Before the Court reserved its verdict, Dave expressed hope that the Bench would issue guidelines on listing and removal of matters.Singhvi replied,"Hope my lords do not go into unnecessary territory.".Advocate Kartik Seth also appeared for the discom. Their pleadings were handled by the Chambers of Kartik Seth.