Delhi Metro tells high court it has ₹6k crore in bank

DAMEPL, a subsidiary of the Reliance Infrastructure, filed an application in the high court on January 7 that DMRC is deliberately trying to delay the execution of over ₹4,600 crore arbitral award against it by not disclosing its bank account details

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) on Monday told the Delhi high court that it has ₹6,208.03 crore in its various bank accounts, a day after Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) filed an application in the court seeking contempt action against the former for not disclosing its complete bank account details.

The application by DAMEPL was filed in response to an affidavit by DMRC filed on January 5, in which Metro made a partial/ limited disclosure of its bank accounts with respect to ₹1,642.69 crore out of the total funds of ₹5,800.93 crore that it had disclosed in the court through its last affidavit filed on December 21, 2021. (ANI)

DAMEPL, a subsidiary of the Reliance Infrastructure, filed an application in the high court on January 7 that DMRC is deliberately trying to delay the execution of over ₹4,600 crore arbitral award against it by not disclosing its bank account details.

DAMEPL said that DMRC is trying to defeat the arbitration process by making a limited disclosure of account details despite the court’s order directing it to disclose all its bank account details.

The application by DAMEPL was filed in response to an affidavit by DMRC filed on January 5, in which Metro made a partial/ limited disclosure of its bank accounts with respect to ₹1,642.69 crore out of the total funds of ₹5,800.93 crore that it had disclosed in the court through its last affidavit filed on December 21, 2021.

On December 22, Justice Suresh Kait directed DMRC to file an affidavit furnishing the details of its bank accounts along with the balance amount.

The judge observed that while the attachment of DMRC’s properties was not permitted under Section 89 of The Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002, there was no such embargo with respect to its bank accounts.

The Monday’s affidavit said that of the total ₹6,208.03 in DMRC’s bank accounts, ₹1,642.69 crore is not the earning of the company. This includes ₹514 crore committed liability due to employees on account of leave salary and post-retirement medical expenses for which provision also created in the books of accounts of DMRC, and ₹114 crore- portion of security deposits of smart cards refundable to the commuters.

The matter is likely to be heard next on Tuesday.

The consortium of Reliance Energy Limited (renamed as Reliance Infrastructure Limited) and M/s Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles, SA terminated the Concession Agreement in October 2012 citing failure of DMRC to cure defects in the structure supporting the Airport Metro Express Line. DMRC invoked the arbitration clause of its contract with the consortium.

The concession agreement between the two was signed on August 25, 2008. Under the agreement, DMRC was to carry out the civil works, excluding at the depot, and the balance, including the project system works, were to be executed by DAMEPL, a joint venture of Rinfra and a Spanish construction company -- Construcciones Y Auxiliar De Ferrocarriles -- with a shareholding of 95 and five per cent respectively.

In 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded damages to the tune of ₹4600 to Reliance Infra, an award upheld by a single-judge bench of the Delhi high court in 2018. A division bench of the same court set aside the award in 2019 after which Reliance Infra approached the Supreme Court.

In September 2021, the apex court set aside the division bench’s judgment of January 15, 2019 order and upheld the arbitral award in favour of DAMEPL, saying that there was a disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards.

In November, the Supreme Court dismissed DMRC’s plea seeking a review of its judgment which upheld the 2017 arbitration award in favour of DAMEPL, enforceable against it.

The DMRC stated that since the corporation was facing a “financial crunch”, undertaking a “sudden liability” would impact public interest and authorities were, therefore, working out a solution. It had also claimed that the amount liable to be paid was approximately ₹5,000 crore.