- Home
- न्यूजग्राम
- India
- World
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Culture
- Lifestyle
- Economy
- Sports
- Sp. Coverage
- Misc.
- NewsGram Exclusive
- Jobs / Internships
Key Points
A Rajasthan judge held that an Adani-led firm had wrongfully recovered over ₹1,400 crore from a state energy company, imposing a fine of ₹50 lakh on the firm.
That same day, the judge was removed from his position in Rajasthan Commercial Court and transferred to a district court in Beawar, over 200KM away.
The judge had stated that the Adani Group had defaulted on its contract, wrongfully gained from it, and even sought additional profits from the state company.
In July 2025, a Rajasthan Court ruled against the Adani Group in a high value mining dispute with a state-owned power company. The judgement held that an Adani-led firm had wrongfully recovered over ₹1,400 crore in transportation charges from Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (RRVUNL), a state electricity company. The ruling imposed a fine of ₹50 lakh on the firm and brought an end to a 12-year-old dispute. Or so it seemed.
On 5 July 2025, Jaipur Commercial Court Judge Dinesh Kumar Gupta delivered his judgement on the Adani-RRVUNL case. He pulled up the firm for not delivering on its contract and acquiring “wrongful gains” from its default. He proceeded to impose a fine on the defaulter and ordered an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
That same day, the Rajasthan Government’s Law and Legal Affairs Department removed Gupta from his position as a commercial court judge. Commercial court appointments are made by state governments in concurrence with the High Court. Hours later, the Rajasthan High Court transferred Gupta to a district court in Beawar, around 200 kilometres from Jaipur.
On 18 July 2025, the High Court stayed Gupta’s order, based on a plea by the Adani Group. Hearings in the matter have continued since, with the next hearing scheduled for January 2026.
The proximity between the judicial ruling and the administrative transfer has drawn attention because the judgment scrutinised one of India’s most debated mining contracts involving a private conglomerate and a public sector undertaking.
The case stems from a coal block allocation made in 2007, when the Union Coal Ministry allotted a coal block in Chhattisgarh’s Hasdeo Arand forest to RRVUNL. The allocation was intended to provide the Rajasthan power producer with a direct coal supply for its thermal power plants. Subsequently, RRVUNL entered into a joint venture with an Adani Group entity, forming Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. – with a 74% stake for the conglomerate and a 26% stake for the state.
It is worth noting that at the time, a private company could only be allocated coal mines if they owned thermal power plants. As such, the Adani firm partnered with the state energy company as a ‘Mine Developer and Operator’. This meant that the Adani Group could mine coal without the liability of operating a power plant. RRVUNL would be in charge of running the plant, and the Adani Group would be in charge of mining.
The two parties signed a Coal Mining and Delivery Agreement, where coal mined from Chhattisgarh was to be transported to Rajasthan by rail. The agreement required the Adani led venture to construct railway sidings connecting the mine to the main railway line.
Mining began in 2013, but the railway sidings were not constructed for several years. In the interim, both parties agreed to use road transport to move coal from the mine to nearby railway stations. The original contract, however, did not include provisions for road transportation.
The venture billed RRVUNL for the cost of transporting coal by road, which eventually amounted to more than ₹1,400 crore. RRVUNL paid these charges initially. The dispute escalated in 2018 when the joint venture demanded interest on delayed payments, amounting to ₹65 crore. RRVUNL refused, leading to litigation.
In 2020, the Adani Group approached the Jaipur Commercial Court seeking recovery of dues. The case was heard by Judge Gupta, who ultimately ruled in favour of the Rajasthan government owned company.
In his order, Gupta observed that the contract clearly placed the responsibility of constructing railway sidings on the Adani joint venture. Since the firm failed to meet this contractual obligation, the court held that it should have borne the cost of road transportation resulting from its own default. RRVUNL submitted to the court that it had complied with the demand so that the elctricity supply of the state is not affected.
The judgment stated that instead of absorbing these costs, the company had claimed more than ₹1,400 crore from RRVUNL and had also sought to earn additional profit by claiming interest on delayed payments.
The court imposed a ₹50 lakh fine on the Adani Group and directed the Rajasthan government to seek a CAG audit of the transaction between the two entities. The judge observed that “It is settled preposition of law that one cannot take advantage of its own fault.”
Rajasthan High Court stayed Gupta’s order soon after. Since then, the matter has remained under judicial consideration, with hearings continuing. The stay means that the fine and the audit direction are currently not in effect.
The High Court has not publicly linked the stay order to Gupta’s transfer. However, the sequence of events – the judgment, the removal from the commercial court, and the transfer order all on the same day – has placed the episode under close scrutiny.
Suggested Reading:
