Delhi Metro vs. DAMEPL: A Legal Battle Over Billions
**Inception of the Dispute**
In 2008, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), a subsidiary of Anil Ambani-led Reliance Infrastructure, signed an agreement to construct, operate, and maintain the Delhi Airport Metro Express Line. While DMRC handled the civil structures, DAMEPL was responsible for the system’s operational aspects.
In 2012, following concerns over structural deficiencies, DAMEPL suspended operations, prompting DMRC to initiate arbitration proceedings. In 2017, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of DAMEPL, ordering DMRC to pay a hefty sum of ₹2,782.33 crores.
**Rejection by Delhi High Court, Upholding by Supreme Court**
DMRC challenged the tribunal’s verdict in the Delhi High Court, but its petition was dismissed. Subsequently, the Supreme Court upheld the arbitration award in 2021.
**Corrective Petition and the Game-Changer**
Undeterred, DMRC filed a corrective petition, which was accepted by the Supreme Court. In a major turn of events, the apex court set aside the arbitration award, absolving DMRC from the massive payment obligation.
**Relief for DMRC, Setback for Reliance Infra**
The Supreme Court’s verdict was a significant triumph for DMRC, saving it from a significant financial burden. Conversely, it dealt a blow to Anil Ambani and Reliance Infrastructure, already burdened by massive debts.
**Key Points to Remember:**
* DMRC and DAMEPL’s contractual dispute involved the Delhi Airport Metro Express Line.
* The arbitral tribunal initially ruled in favor of DAMEPL, ordering DMRC to pay ₹2,782.33 crores.
* DMRC challenged the verdict in higher courts, including the Supreme Court.
* The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the arbitration award, relieving DMRC of the payment obligation.
* The ruling was a setback for Anil Ambani and Reliance Infrastructure, facing financial challenges.
**Impact on Reliance Infra Stock**
The Supreme Court’s decision negatively impacted Reliance Infra’s stock, resulting in a 20% decline. Investors perceived the outcome as detrimental to the company’s financial health.
**Conclusion**
The legal battle between DMRC and DAMEPL culminated in a landmark decision that relieved DMRC of a substantial financial obligation. It also served as a reminder of the complexities of contractual disputes and the power of the judiciary in resolving such matters.
Mehek