Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Exercise of the Curative Jurisdiction Should Not be Adopted as a Matter of Ordinary Course: SC Allows Curative Petition

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court allowed the curative petition filed by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC), setting aside the previous judgment which upheld the arbitral award favoring Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (DAMEPL). The Court observed that the award was patently illegal and perverse, as it overlooked vital evidence and contained an erroneous interpretation of the termination clause.

Factual Background and Issues: The dispute arose from a concession agreement for the Delhi Airport Metro line, under which DAMEPL sought to terminate the agreement citing defects attributed to DMRC’s construction and designs. The Arbitral Tribunal awarded in favor of DAMEPL. However, DMRC challenged the award, asserting miscarriage of justice due to overlooked evidence, including the CMRS certificate, and erroneous contractual interpretation by the Tribunal.

Curative Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court emphasized the rare invocation of curative jurisdiction, stating it is to be used to prevent abuse of process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice.

Patent Illegality of the Arbitral Award: The Court found that the Arbitral Tribunal’s interpretation of the termination clause and disregard for the CMRS certificate led to a patently illegal award. The Tribunal failed to consider DMRC’s effective steps during the cure period and misconstrued the importance of the CMRS certificate under the Metro Railways Act.

Termination Clause Interpretation: The Court highlighted that the Tribunal unreasonably interpreted the termination clause, failing to differentiate between the ‘curing of defects’ and ‘taking effective steps to cure defects.’

CMRS Certificate’s Significance: The Court underlined the critical role of the CMRS certificate, evidencing the safety of the metro operations, which the Tribunal had erroneously disregarded.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the curative petition, recognizing that the award failed to address the miscarriage of justice. The Court set aside the earlier judgment, restoring the status quo of the parties before the arbitral award, and directed the discontinuation of the execution proceedings.

Date of Decision: 10th April 2024

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.

 

Latest Legal News