The Supreme Court’s recent hearing of a Curative Petition by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation against Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited sheds light on the challenging threshold for reopening cases under Article 142, emphasizing its implications for commercial disputes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Supreme Court recently delved into the intricate landscape of commercial curative petitions during the hearing of a Curative Petition filed by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) against the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL). This landmark case has raised crucial questions about the high threshold required to reopen a case through Curative Jurisdiction under Article 142.
Article 142 of the Constitution of India –
- The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, is empowered to pass decrees or make orders necessary for ensuring complete justice in any pending cause or matter before it. Such decrees or orders are enforceable across the entire territory of India, either in accordance with laws prescribed by Parliament or, until specific provisions are made, as directed by the President.
- The Supreme Court, with regard to the entire territory of India, possesses comprehensive authority to issue orders facilitating the attendance of individuals, the discovery or production of documents, and the investigation or punishment of contempt against the Court. This authority is subject to any laws enacted by Parliament on this matter.
ALSO READ: AAP Clarifies Supreme Court Allegations: Land Allotted in 2015, Not Encroached
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, heading the bench alongside Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant, emphasized the elevated threshold for considering curative petitions, particularly in commercial cases. He remarked,
“Particularly in a commercial case, that threshold must be particularly high; it’s not like you are dealing with a human rights case, death penalty case, etc… we get your point… it has to be seen in terms of certainty, consistency, and predictability of the law.”
This sets the stage for the complex interplay between constitutional provisions and the nuances of commercial disputes.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing DAMEPL, voiced objections to the inclusion of the 2021 decision in the curative petition, invoking the words of Justice Krishna Iyer:
“To ask for a curative petition is to ask for a solar system which is beyond ours.”
This metaphorical expression underscores the exceptional nature of curative petitions, urging caution in their application, especially in commercial contexts.
The court, referencing the precedent set in Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, addressed Mr. Salve’s concerns regarding the scope of jurisdiction under Article 142 in arbitration matters. Acknowledging the exceptional nature of curative jurisdiction, the Chief Justice stated,
“The constitution bench also held the position that the circumstances for exercising the jurisdiction which is elucidated in para 49 are not exhaustive… but at the same time we say that look there is an exceptional situation where you will not exhaustively list out those circumstances because you do not want to stultify the hands of the future benches.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Litigants Cannot Be Prevented from Filing False Civil Cases Against Lawyers
Divergent views emerged as Mr. Venugopal and Attorney General Mr. R Venkataramani, representing DMRC, argued in favor of the curative petition. They invoked the court’s wide powers under Articles 129 and 142,
Articles 129 –
The Supreme Court, as a court of record, possesses the authority to punish for contempt of its proceedings.
Referencing observations in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, stating-
“To prevent abuse of its process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may reconsider its judgments in exercise of its inherent power.”
Mr. Venugopal highlighted alleged miscarriages of justice in the impugned order, emphasizing the High Court’s findings that the tribunal’s conclusions were “perverse, shocks the conscience and they are irrational.” This underscores the intricate balance that courts must strike in revisiting final judgments, especially in cases with substantial financial implications.
The dispute between DAMEPL and DMRC originated from the non-payment of termination fees, leading to arbitration in 2017. The tribunal ruled in favor of DAMEPL, awarding Rs. 2782.33 crores. The High Court partly set aside the award, but the Supreme Court upheld the original award in September 2021. This background provides insight into the complexities of contractual disputes in large-scale infrastructure projects and the challenges faced by parties seeking redress.
ALSO READ: West Bengal| Supreme Court Terminates Trials Over Post-Poll Violence
Despite ongoing discussions and a subsequent deposit by DMRC, the outstanding sum amounted to Rs 8,009.38 crores as of February 14, 2022. DAMEPL’s curative petition challenges the finality of the 2021 judgment, seeking a reexamination of the case based on the circumstances surrounding the termination of the contract.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
