Landmark Exercise of Curative Jurisdiction•2 min read•2024 INSC 292 : (2024) 6 SCC 357

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.

Bench: Three-Judge Special Bench (D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J., B.R. Gavai & Surya Kant, JJ.)
Review & Curative Petitions (Order XLVII)
Read the full judgment on Indian Kanoon
Core Legal Ratio Decidendi

"Curative jurisdiction under Article 142 can be exercised in commercial arbitration where an apex court judgment perpetuates a perverse arbitral award in disregard of statutory terms, culminating in monumental miscarriage of justice."

I
Step 1

Issues Before the Court

  1. (i)

    Whether the Supreme Court was justified in invoking its exceptional curative jurisdiction under Article 142 to set aside a final judgment that had restored an arbitral award against Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC)?

  2. (ii)

    Did the original Supreme Court bench commit a patent error of law by interfering with a Division Bench judgment of the High Court that had rightly set aside an arbitral award for overlooking vital contractual safety clauses?

R
Step 2

Law & Rules Applicable

  1. (i)

    Constitution of India, Article 142 (Doing complete justice) & Curative Jurisdiction.

  2. (ii)

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 & Section 37.

  3. (iii)

    Precedents: Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra; Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority; Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI.

A
Step 3

Application to Facts & Circumstances

DAMEPL terminated the Airport Metro concession agreement citing civil structure defects. An arbitral tribunal awarded over Rs 2,800 crores plus interest (ballooning to near Rs 8,000 crores) against DMRC. While a Single Judge upheld the award under Section 34, a Division Bench under Section 37 set it aside because the tribunal ignored the cure notice period and statutory CMRS safety certifications.

In 2021, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court reversed the Division Bench and restored the award. Review petitions were dismissed. DMRC then filed a Curative Petition.

The Special Bench headed by the Chief Justice examined the record and held that the 2021 bench committed a patent and grave miscarriage of justice by setting aside a well-reasoned Section 37 Division Bench order.

The arbitral tribunal had completely overlooked the express terms of the contract regarding cure periods and ignored the fact that the CMRS had granted permission to run the trains.

The Court held that this resulted in a perverse arbitral award causing catastrophic liability on a public utility, demanding curative intervention to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

C
Step 4

Conclusion & Ruling

  1. (i)

    The Curative Petition was allowed; the 2021 Supreme Court judgment was recalled, and the High Court Division Bench judgment setting aside the arbitral award was restored.

  2. (ii)

    The Court ordered full restitution: all sums deposited or paid by DMRC under execution proceedings were ordered to be refunded.

  3. (iii)

    Reaffirmed that while curative power is rare, it is an indispensable instrument to undo grave judicial perversity affecting public interest.

Authorities Cited

Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.

  1. Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49Case brief →Full text of Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority on Indian Kanoon
  2. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388Case brief →Full text of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra on Indian Kanoon
  3. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 : AIR 2019 SC 5041Case brief →Full text of Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI on Indian Kanoon
← All case law briefs