[ad_1]
The court also asked the parties to submit their written submissions and posted the matter for further hearing on February 17.
In its May 2017 award, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of DAMEPL, which had pulled out of running the Airport Express metro line due to safety concerns, and accepted its claim that running operations on the line was not sustainable due to structural defects in the viaduct through which would drive the train.
Senior advocate Parag P Tripathi, appearing for DMRC, said there was a genuine dispute regarding the amount to be paid as according to them, after an earlier payment of Rs 1,000 crore, only Rs 3,305 crore remained as against DAMEPL’s claim of Rs 6305 crores. A senior lawyer said that the amount in DMRC’s account was earmarked for several projects and other purposes and was not its own money which can be given under law.
In its affidavit filed earlier this month, the DMRC said it has about Rs 1,478 crore as ‘DMRC funds’ and about Rs 2668 crore and Rs 1561 crore as ‘project funds’ and ‘other funds’ respectively.
“This Rs 2670 crore which is earmarked for the development of phase III and phase IV and Rs 1561 crore for the development of metro in Patna, Maharashtra, etc. they are not money that belongs to me or that I have at my disposal,” the senior lawyer said.
Tripathi pointed out that the DMRC had 14,000 employees and had a monthly net loss of around Rs 100 crore.
He also stated that the property of the metro cannot be attached under Section 89 of the Metro (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002.
Senior advocate Rakesh Kumar Khanna, appearing for DAMEPL, argued that the corporation is hiding its correct financial position from the court and thousands of crores of rupees are lying in its fixed deposits, term deposits as well as equity in the share market, etc.
“They have money. The center is 50 percent of the shareholders and the company cannot pay the obligation of 6,300 million dinars?” he questioned.
The Supreme Court had on January 24 asked the DMRC and DAMEPL to request the High Court to hear the dispute relating to the enforcement of the arbitration award, saying any further delay was detrimental to the interests of both parties.
Last year, the DMRC had told the court that since the corporation was facing a “financial crisis”, taking on the “sudden liability” would affect the public interest and the authorities were therefore working on a solution.
It said it would deposit Rs 1,000 crore in favor of DAMEPL in an escrow account and proposed to assume the debt of subsidiary Reliance Infrastructure up to the award money, saying it would be in a better position to negotiate with the bank lender.
However, DAMEPL rejected the offer and the court observed that if the decree holder does not want to accept the proposal, it cannot be compelled to do so.
The High Court had earlier also pulled up DAMEPL for playing hide-and-seek with the court and withholding extra-judicial communication with DMRC to resolve a dispute related to the enforcement of an arbitration award of over Rs 4,600 crore passed against the PSU.
The award referred to the concession agreement between the two entities, which was signed on August 25, 2008.
According to the agreement, DMRC was to carry out the construction work, except for the depot, and the rest, including the project system work, was to be carried out by DAMEPL, a joint venture between Rinfra and the Spanish construction company — Construcciones I Aukiliar De Ferrocarriles — with a share of 95 or five percent.
[ad_2]
Source link
