Archive · 5 Sep 2026
Justice Nariman Warns Curative Rulings Threaten Arbitration Award Finality
A company and Delhi Metro disagreed about an Airport Express Metro contract.
An arbitration panel decided in favor of the company in 2017.
The decision was challenged in several courts.
The Supreme Court first restored the decision in 2021.
In 2024, it later cancelled the decision after considering a special curative petition.
Justice Nariman said this could make arbitration decisions uncertain for too long.
He believes there should be one complete appeal with clear time limits.
This could check both the facts and the law while keeping arbitration faster than ordinary lawsuits.
Justice Rohinton F Nariman criticised the Supreme Court’s 2024 reopening of the Delhi Metro arbitration award.
The dispute involved DMRC and Delhi Airport Metro Express over termination of their Airport Express Metro agreement.
An arbitral tribunal ruled for DAMEPL in 2017, but the award passed through several judicial challenges.
The Supreme Court restored the award in 2021 before setting it aside through a curative petition in 2024.
Nariman proposed one full appellate review on facts and law, subject to strict timelines.
- Who
- Justice Rohinton F Nariman discussed the case involving the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited.
- What
- He criticised the Supreme Court’s 2024 curative intervention that set aside an arbitration award after earlier judicial proceedings had ended.
- When
- The arbitration began with a 2008 agreement; the award was issued in 2017, restored in 2021, and set aside in April 2024. Nariman spoke at GHAC Arbitration Week 2026.
- Where
- The dispute concerned the Airport Express Metro line in Delhi; Nariman spoke at an event organised by the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre.
- Why
- Nariman said the intervention created a broader opportunity to challenge arbitral awards on grounds of alleged miscarriage of justice after statutory remedies were exhausted.
Concern About Curative Intervention
Basis for Setting Aside Award
Finality of arbitration
Concern About Curative Intervention
Justice Nariman said the ruling allows a new, broader challenge after the award had passed through arbitration, the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court, and review proceedings.
Basis for Setting Aside Award
The 2024 Supreme Court Bench held that the award involved patent illegality and that its restoration had caused a gross miscarriage of justice.
Scope of judicial review
Concern About Curative Intervention
Nariman argued that curative jurisdiction should generally be limited to exceptional cases involving egregious, irremediable injustice, such as bias, denial of a fair hearing, breach of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction.
Basis for Setting Aside Award
The Court intervened after finding that the award failed to properly address crucial material, including a certificate concerning the safety and operation of the Metro line.
Future arbitration system
Concern About Curative Intervention
Nariman warned that arbitral awards could now face factual interference at the final curative stage, creating a major problem for arbitration.
Basis for Setting Aside Award
Nariman’s proposed alternative was a single full appeal on facts and law, which would allow accuracy checks while preserving arbitration’s speed and cost advantages.
- Parties
- Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited, a consortium led by Reliance Infrastructure.
- Original agreement
- A 2008 public-private partnership agreement for operating the Airport Express Metro line.
- Termination
- DAMEPL terminated the agreement in 2012, alleging DMRC failed to correct structural defects within the 90-day cure period.
- Arbitral award
- A three-member tribunal ruled unanimously for DAMEPL in May 2017 and awarded damages.
- Supreme Court timeline
- The Court restored the award in September 2021, dismissed DMRC’s review petition in 2022, and set aside the award in April 2024.
- Award value
- The award, including accumulated interest, had risen to more than Rs 7,600 crore.
- Proposed reform
- Nariman suggested one full appellate review on facts and law before a Division Bench, combined with strict timelines.