MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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