Latest News
Supreme Court of India Sets Aside $960 Million Arbitration Award in Metro Project Dispute
Background of the Dispute:
In a significant ruling that has drawn attention from legal professionals and stakeholders in the infrastructure sector, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a $960 million arbitration award in favor of a construction consortium. This decision concluded a prolonged legal battle involving the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and the Concessionaire, Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), a special purpose vehicle established by Reliance Infrastructure Limited and Construcciones Y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles SA, Spain. The dispute arose from a Concession Agreement signed in 2008, under which DAMEPL was granted the exclusive rights to construct, operate, and maintain the Delhi Airport Metro Express Line. Operations began in February 2011, but by April 2012, DAMEPL cited safety concerns and halted operations, subsequently issuing a "Cure Notice" to DMRC listing defects and threatening termination if these were not addressed within 90 days.
Arbitration and Initial Court Proceedings:
In response, DMRC initiated arbitration proceedings in October 2012 after conciliation efforts failed. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of DAMEPL in May 2017, awarding significant sums for termination payment, operational expenses, and other costs. DMRC challenged the award in the Delhi High Court, where a Single Judge upheld the tribunal's decision. However, a Division Bench later partly set aside the award, deeming it perverse and patently illegal.
Supreme Court's Interventions:
DAMEPL escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, which initially reinstated the arbitral award. Following DMRC's unsuccessful review petition, the case culminated in a curative petition before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which scrutinized the tribunal's interpretation of the termination clause and the relevance of a safety certificate issued by the Commissioner of Metro Rail Safety (CMRS).
Analysis of Termination Clause and CMRS Certificate:
The Supreme Court found that the arbitral tribunal's interpretation of the Concession Agreement’s termination clause was flawed. The clause allowed for termination if DMRC failed to cure the defects or take effective steps within the cure period. The Court criticized the tribunal for equating "effective steps" with full resolution of defects, thus ignoring the potential for steps that, while not immediately curing all defects, were nonetheless sufficient to prevent termination. Additionally, the Court highlighted the tribunal’s disregard for the CMRS certificate, which declared the metro line safe for operations with certain conditions. The Supreme Court deemed this certificate vital evidence, indicating that DMRC had indeed taken effective steps to address safety concerns, contrary to the tribunal’s conclusion.
Conclusion and Implications:
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the arbitral award was patently illegal and should not have been reinstated. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to preventing unjust enrichment and safeguarding public interests, especially in large-scale infrastructure projects involving state entities. The curative jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court in this case serves as a critical check against miscarriages of justice in arbitration proceedings. However, the Court cautioned against frequent reliance on curative petitions, emphasizing their use only in exceptional circumstances to prevent manifest injustice. This ruling sets a precedent for future disputes in India's infrastructure sector, particularly those involving public-private partnerships. It reinforces the importance of thorough judicial scrutiny in arbitration awards and highlights the balance between respecting arbitral tribunal decisions and protecting public utilities from undue liabilities.
Reference: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. 2024 INSC 292.
- The Supreme Court found that the arbitral tribunal's interpretation of the Concession Agreement’s termination clause was flawed.
- The Supreme Court deemed this certificate vital evidence, indicating that DMRC had indeed taken effective steps to address safety concerns, contrary to the tribunal’s conclusion.
- The curative jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court in this case serves as a critical check against miscarriages of justice in arbitration proceedings.
