LexDELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. versus DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 473 : 2024 INSC 292 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Curative Petition (C) Nos.108-109 of 2022 In Review Petition (C) Nos.1158-1159 of 2021 In (Civil Appeal Nos 5627-5628 of 2021) 10 April 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* B R Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ.] Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the curative petition is maintainable; and (ii) Whether this Court (two-judge Bench) was justified in restoring the arbitral award which had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that it suffered from patently illegality. Headnotes Curative Petition – Curative Jurisdiction may be invoked if there is a miscarriage of justice: Held: The Supreme Court laid down an overarching principle in Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra [2002] 2 SCR 1006 that the Court may entertain a curative petition to (i) prevent abuse of its process; and (ii) to cure a gross miscarriage of justice – The enumeration of the situations in which the curative jurisdiction can be exercised is not intended to be exhaustive – The Court went on to lay down certain procedural requirements to entertain a curative petition such as a certificate by a Senior Advocate about fulfilling of the requirements. [Paras 33 and 34] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – s.34 – Scope of interference of courts with arbitral awards: Held: Section 34 of the Arbitration Act delineates the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award – In addition to the grounds on which an arbitral award can be assailed laid down in section 34(2), there is another ground for challenge against domestic awards, such as the award in the present case – Under Section 34(2-A) of the Arbitration Act, a domestic award may be set aside if the 474 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Court finds that it is vitiated by ‘patent illegality’ appearing on the face of the award. [Paras 36, 37] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – s.34 – Setting aside of domestic award – Ground of patent illegality: Held: The ground of patent illegality is available for setting aside a domestic award, if the decision of the arbitrator is found to be perverse, or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at it; or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take; or, that the view of the arbitrator is not even a possible view – A ‘finding’ based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside under the head of ‘patent illegality’ – An award without reasons would suffer from patent illegality – The arbitrator commits a patent illegality by deciding a matter not within his jurisdiction or violating a fundamental principle of natural justice. [Para 40] Constitution of India – Art.136 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – ss. 34, 37 – Remedy u/Art. 136 against a decision rendered in appeal u/s. 37 of 1996 Act: Held: In the statutory scheme of the Arbitration Act, a recourse to s.37 is the only appellate remedy available against a decision u/s. 34 – The Constitution, however, provides the parties with a remedy u/Art. 136 against a decision rendered in appeal u/s. 37 – This is the discretionary and exceptional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant Special Leave to Appeal – While adjudicating the merits of a Special Leave Petition and exercising its power u/Art. 136, this Court must interfere sparingly and only when exceptional circumstances exist, justifying the exercise of this Court’s discretion – The Court must apply settled principles of judicial review such as whether the findings of the High Court are borne out from the record or are based on a misappreciation of law and fact – In particular, this Court must be slow in interfering with a judgement delivered in exercise of powers u/s. 37 unless there is an error in exercising of the jurisdiction by the Court u/s. 37. [Paras 42 and 43] Curative Petition – The petitioner-DMRC and DAMEPL (a special purpose vehicle incorporated by a consortium) entered into the Concession Agreement (2008 agreement) – DAMPEL was to undertake among other things, the design, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of railway [2024] 4 S.C.R. 475 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. system – Dispute arose between the parties – DAMEPL alleged that the line w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.