Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras High Court

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