The Supreme Court on Monday sternly warned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) and Axis Bank officials to adhere to its previous verdict regarding their dispute with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) or face possible coercive measures. The bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, expressed frustration over the non-compliance, questioning the need for “hide and seek” tactics when a judgment has already been laid down.
In a significant development, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Axis Bank, stated that the bank had only managed the escrow account related to the dispute and had not been a party to the original conflict for six years. However, it recently received a contempt notice for non-payment, which has brought it back into the spotlight.
The bench, unmoved by the bank’s claims of being a peripheral party to the dispute, focused on ensuring strict adherence to the court’s decisions. It clarified that it was not interested in the claim and counterclaim between the bank and other parties but was determined to see the judgment executed fully.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for DMRC, argued that Axis Bank was fully aware of the legal proceedings and the implications thereof, despite their claims to the contrary. The court has instructed Venkataramani to gather the names and positions of those responsible for compliance, hinting at direct action if the orders are not followed.
This directive follows a series of legal reversals and adjustments stemming from a protracted arbitration process that originally awarded nearly Rs 8,000 crore to DAMEPL. This award was related to the termination of their contract to operate the Airport Express Metro line in Delhi, a contract they abandoned in 2012 citing safety concerns.
The apex court had previously overturned its own judgments from 2021 and earlier, which had enforced the arbitration award. In a dramatic ruling on April 10, 2024, the court called for DAMEPL to return approximately Rs 2,500 crore it had received, labeling the previous verdict as causing a “grave miscarriage of injustice” to DMRC.
