Supreme Court Questions Influence of DAMEPL
In a significant development on Tuesday, the Supreme Court made pointed observations regarding the influence wielded by Anil Ambani’s Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) in its ongoing legal battle with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, noted that DAMEPL seemed to be garnering substantial support on public platforms, despite having lost an arbitration dispute worth ₹8,000 crore against DMRC.
Court Proceedings and Remarks
During the proceedings, Attorney General R Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, representing the banks involved, requested additional time to attempt an internal resolution of the dispute. The Bench acknowledged the standstill situation and indicated its willingness to hear arguments if necessary. However, counsel stated that there had been some progress toward an internal settlement and requested further opportunities to negotiate.
The courtroom witnessed a lighter moment when Senior Advocates expressed a desire to avoid a public dispute between the parties, drawing laughter. The Bench clarified that the banks were not judgment debtors in this case. Senior Counsel confirmed, “Judgment debtor is somebody else…Reliance.” This led the Bench to remark on the unexpected support the judgment debtor seemed to receive, despite losing the case.
Background of the Dispute
The legal tussle traces back to a 2008 concession agreement, wherein DAMEPL undertook the operation of the Delhi Airport Express Metro Line. DAMEPL terminated the agreement in 2012, citing DMRC’s failure to address structural issues. An arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of DAMEPL in 2017, awarding it ₹2,782.33 crore, which, with interest, swelled to approximately ₹8,000 crore by 2022.
In 2021, the Supreme Court reinstated the arbitral award after a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had partially set it aside. However, the situation took a turn in April 2024 when the Supreme Court accepted DMRC’s curative petition, overturning its earlier decision. The Court reasoned that the previous restoration of the award constituted a “grave miscarriage of justice,” imposing an excessive financial burden on a public utility. Consequently, the execution proceedings were halted, and DMRC was instructed to reclaim any funds paid under coercion.
More Read
Contempt Proceedings and Bank’s Role
Following these developments, DMRC initiated contempt proceedings against DAMEPL, its officials, and Axis Bank, alleging non-return of approximately ₹2,599 crore, along with accrued interest. The banks, maintaining their stance, asserted that they were not judgment debtors. The funds in question, they explained, had been utilized to settle loans extended to DAMEPL, under an escrow arrangement.
