Judicial Interference And Indian Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Read More]

The Supreme Court of India's judgment in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi Metro case) has sparked widespread debate among arbitration practitioners, lawyers, and academics. \r

The case arose from disputes over a public-private partnership project for metro rail connectivity, leading to termination and subsequent arbitration. Despite earlier challenges and appeals under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court, invoking its curative jurisdiction under Article 136, set aside an arbitral award favoring Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (DAMEPL). \r

The Court found the award to be "perverse, irrational, and patently illegal" due to alleged omissions in considering crucial evidence and statutory certifications. Critics argue this decision undermines India's aspiration to become an international arbitration hub, while supporters view it as necessary to correct procedural injustices and maintain the integrity of arbitration outcomes under domestic law.