Supreme Court passed historical judgement on Delhi Metro Airport Express Line case

New Delhi, India (Metro Rail Today): The Supreme Court granted relief to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) on April 10, allowing its curative petition challenging an arbitral award requiring it to pay approximately ₹8,000 crore (with interest) to Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), a subsidiary of Reliance Infrastructure.

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud acknowledged a "grave miscarriage of justice" caused by the top court's judgment in September 2021, which upheld the award and mandated DMRC to pay the specified amount to DAMEPL following the cancellation of the contract for operating the 22.7km Airport Metro Express line.

The contract's termination in October 2012 led to an arbitral tribunal award on May 11, 2017, invoked by DMRC against the consortium of Reliance Energy Ltd (now Reliance Infrastructure) and Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles SA. DAMEPL cited DMRC's failure to rectify defects in the structure supporting the Airport Metro Express line.

The bench, including Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai, expressed disagreement with the Delhi High Court's division bench order favoring DMRC, asserting that it resulted in unjustly benefiting DAMEPL.

In deciding the curative petition, the court, as the final legal recourse for DMRC following the dismissal of its review petition earlier, directed any amounts already paid by DMRC to be refunded.

DMRC had previously claimed to have deposited ₹1,678.42 crore out of its total liability.

Following the September 2021 verdict, DAMEPL sought execution of the award from the Delhi High Court. However, the Supreme Court instructed the high court last August to postpone proceedings until a decision on the curative plea was reached.

Representatives for DMRC, including Attorney General R Venkataramani and senior advocate KK Venugopal, argued that the airport line has been effectively managed by DMRC since July 2013 post-contract termination. They contended that any defects were to be assessed by the rail safety commissioner, and DAMEPL's profit difficulties led to shifting blame onto DMRC.

Senior advocates Harish Salve and Kapil Sibal, representing DAMEPL, countered that the curative petition raised new arguments challenging the award itself, beyond the court's limited jurisdiction. Salve highlighted the principal amount under the award at ₹2,945.55 crore, surpassing ₹7,900 crore with interest.

The arbitral tribunal identified numerous structural defects, including cracks in girders and twists in others, leading to the conclusion of DMRC's breach of the concession agreement due to inadequate rectification efforts within the stipulated period.

In summary, the Supreme Court's decision grants relief to DMRC in its dispute with DAMEPL, acknowledging procedural and substantive concerns raised in the curative petition.