Anil Ambani-backed Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) has filed a fresh application requesting the Delhi High Court to direct the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to deposit ₹6,208 crore available in its various bank accounts into an escrow account without any delay.
“It is reiterated that the delay in payment by DMRC is causing immense prejudice to DAMEPL and its Promoter, Reliance Infrastructure Limited. In case the reliefs as sought for are not granted, the Decree Holder shall suffer irreparable loss and injury,” DAMEPL said in its application.
Dues pending
The Supreme Court, on September 7, 2021, had upheld the arbitration award in favour of DAMEPL which then filed an execution petition in the Delhi HC on September 12, seeking the court’s directions to DMRC for honouring the SC order. DMRC has so far, paid only ₹1,000 crore.
In 2008, an agreement was entered into between DMRC and Reliance Infra’s special purpose entity DAMEPL for design, installation, commissioning, operation and maintenance of Airport Metro Express Line. In 2012, DAMEPL complained of faulty design and quality in the installation of viaduct bearings. A notice was issued by DAMEPL asking DMRC to cure the defects in DMRC’s works within 90 days from the date of the notice, failing which it shall be treated as a breach of the agreement.
‘No alternate proposals’
DAMEPL, in its fresh application, has rejected any out-of-court negotiations/settlement or assignment of debt to the DMRC. DAMEPL also said it wants the execution of arbitral award at the earliest and is not agreeable to any alternate proposal from DMRC.
The Supreme Court on January 24 directed the Delhi High Court to hear the case on January 31.
"The parties are directed to appear before the High Court and seek for advancing the date of hearing. We request the High Court to take up the matter at the earliest and dispose of the application without any further delay, as consequences of the pendency of the said application are detrimental to the interest of the petitioner as well as respondent," the top court had said.