CJI D.Y. Chandrachud ordered that the execution proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court to implement the 2017 arbitral award be closed and the deposited amount be returned to DMRC.
“Part of the award money, if any, paid by the petitioner (DMRC) as a result of the coercive action may be restored in favor of the petitioner. To give effect to the same, the order passed by the High Court during the execution proceedings, the arbitral award is set aside,'' said the bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant were also included.
The decision came on a curative petition by DMRC challenging restoration of the award in favor of Reliance Infrastructure arm DAMEPL.
In 2017, a three-member arbitral tribunal ruled unanimously in favor of DAMEPL, accepting the airport metro operator's claim that it was not viable to run operations on the line due to reasons such as structural defects.Subsequently, a division bench of the Delhi High Court partially allowed the petition filed by DMRC. However, the award was restored by the Supreme Court on a special leave petition filed by DAMEPL.
In its latest judgment, the top court said: “Although there are allegations in the cure notice that the line was not in operation, there is evidence on record to indicate that the line was in fact in operation.... This clarification in the judgment including why the steps taken by DMRC were not 'effective steps' within the meaning of the termination clause."
Further, it said that the arbitral tribunal ignored the specific terms of the termination clause and wrongly dismissed the CMRS (Commissioner of Metro Railway Safety) approval as irrelevant.
The Supreme Court said that "the Division Bench (of the High Court) rightly held that the arbitral tribunal ignored material evidence on record, resulting in distortion and patent invalidity, necessitating interference".It added that the Division Bench applied the correct test in holding that the arbitral award suffered from distortions and defects of patent illegality.
In 2008, DAMEPL entered into a contract with DMRC to run the airport metro line till 2038. As the dispute arose between the parties, DAMEP stopped metro operations on the airport line and invoked an arbitration clause against DMRC alleging violations. Demanded termination of contract and termination fee.
“Part of the award money, if any, paid by the petitioner (DMRC) as a result of the coercive action may be restored in favor of the petitioner. To give effect to the same, the order passed by the High Court during the execution proceedings, the arbitral award is set aside,'' said the bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant were also included.
The decision came on a curative petition by DMRC challenging restoration of the award in favor of Reliance Infrastructure arm DAMEPL.
In 2017, a three-member arbitral tribunal ruled unanimously in favor of DAMEPL, accepting the airport metro operator's claim that it was not viable to run operations on the line due to reasons such as structural defects.Subsequently, a division bench of the Delhi High Court partially allowed the petition filed by DMRC. However, the award was restored by the Supreme Court on a special leave petition filed by DAMEPL.
In its latest judgment, the top court said: “Although there are allegations in the cure notice that the line was not in operation, there is evidence on record to indicate that the line was in fact in operation.... This clarification in the judgment including why the steps taken by DMRC were not 'effective steps' within the meaning of the termination clause."
Further, it said that the arbitral tribunal ignored the specific terms of the termination clause and wrongly dismissed the CMRS (Commissioner of Metro Railway Safety) approval as irrelevant.
The Supreme Court said that "the Division Bench (of the High Court) rightly held that the arbitral tribunal ignored material evidence on record, resulting in distortion and patent invalidity, necessitating interference".It added that the Division Bench applied the correct test in holding that the arbitral award suffered from distortions and defects of patent illegality.
In 2008, DAMEPL entered into a contract with DMRC to run the airport metro line till 2038. As the dispute arose between the parties, DAMEP stopped metro operations on the airport line and invoked an arbitration clause against DMRC alleging violations. Demanded termination of contract and termination fee.
