New Delhi [India], July 6 (ANI): Twenty shortlisted Airmen seeking direction for issuance of enrollment list and appointment letters have approached the Delhi High court. They are seeking appointment as per the notification of 2019 and that they should not be affected by the new Agnipath scheme.

New Delhi [India], March 10 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to pay Rs 824.10 crore to Reliance Infrastructure subsidiary Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) within two weeks.

New Delhi [India], January 30 (ANI): The Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) has filed a fresh application requesting Delhi High Court to direct Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (DMRC) to deposit Rs 6,208 crores available in its various bank accounts into the project escrow account without any delay.

New Delhi [India], January 10 (ANI): Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) has filed a fresh affidavit in Delhi High Court furnishing details of all the bank accounts and funds worth Rs 6,208 crores lying in those accounts.

New Delhi Dec 22 PTI The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation DMRC to file an affidavit furnishing the details of its bank accounts along with the balance amount in connection with a Reliance Infrastructure subsidiarys plea for the execution of an arbitral award of over Rs 4600 crore against itJustice Suresh Kumar Kait noted that the DMRC has Rs 164269 crore available in its bank accounts and said that if the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited DAMEPL does not want to accept the corporations offer of taking over its debts to the extent of the award the court cant force it to do soDAMEPL says if it has money in hand in escrow account at least it can bargain with banks for restructuring etc Suppose it passes on total liability to you to pay to the lenders it will lose the bargaining power It is a decree holder you DMRC are a judgement debtor If your offer is accepted no issues But when it is not accepting that this court cant force it that you accept in this fashion the judge saidThe judge further observed that while the attachment of the DMRCs properties was not permitted there was no such embargo with respect to its bank accountsHere properties cannot be attached as per Section 89 of The Metro Railways Operation and Maintenance Act 2002 The option left with court is that how much money is left in the bank account That can be taken care of the court statedThe DMRC is directed to furnish the details of banks accounts in Delhi or outside Delhi It will also be mentioned in the affidavit how much amount is lying in a particular account the court orderedLawyer Prateek Seksaria appearing for DAMEPL informed that its lenders have rejected the DMRCs proposal of taking care of its liabilities and contended that no special treatment can be given to the government in the present execution proceedingsThe government should set an example by paying the award instead argued the lawyer who claimed that even after the DMRC deposited Rs 1000 crore in the escrow account over Rs 6000 crore was still due He submitted that DAMEPL is entitled to the amount awarded in the arbitration proceedings as well as the benefit of any surplus which may be utilised to restart its businessesDAMEPLs counsel further relied on the DMRCs affidavit to state that the corporation has over Rs 5800 crore in its bank accounts as on December 17 with Rs 1642 crore being its earning and over Rs 2400 crore and Rs 1700 crore being its project allocation fund and deposit fund respectivelyHe prayed that at least the admitted earnings of the DMRC should straightaway be appropriated towards execution of the awardSolicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Parag Tripathi appearing for the DMRC told the court that they have no instructions with respect to the banks concerned rejecting the proposal and reiterated that the corporation taking over DAMEPLs debts to the extent of the award and negotiating with the lenders would be in public interestThe government says we are in negotiations with the bank Reliance the award holderthey come and say that banks are interested in we DAMEPL getting the money and they have rejected the governments proposal If this is so this is very seriousSomething needs to be examined by the banking division also the solicitor general statedTripathi urged the court to grant the DMRC an opportunity to work out a solution and submitted that if the bank accounts are attached and metro services are stopped nobody would gain anythingIf metro is stopped tomorrow there will be a huge issueI will work it out because as an instrumentality of the state when I sit with the banks the ability to get a roll over of the amount as a loan from bank will be much greater he saidThe DMRC had told the court that it would deposit Rs 1000 crore in favour of DAMEPL while suggesting taking over its debt to the extent of the award moneyThe DMRC had 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 solutionIt had also claimed that the amount liable to be paid was approximately Rs 5000 crore which was lesser than DAMEPLs claimAn arbitral tribunal in its May 2017 award had ruled in favour of DAMEPL which had pulled out from running the Airport Express metro line over safety issues and accepted its claim that the running of operations on the line was not viable due to structural defects in the viaduct through which the train would runThe concession agreement between the two was signed on August 25 2008 Under the agreementthe DMRCwas 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 respectivelyThe Airport Express line was commissioned on February 23 2011 after an investment of over Rs 2885 crore funded by the DAMEPL promoters fund banks and financial institutions In November the Supreme Court had dismissedthe DMRCs plea seeking a review of its judgement which upheld the 2017 arbitration award in favour of DAMEPL enforceable against it The next hearing in the matter would take place in JanuaryPTI ADS DV DV

New Delhi Oct 29 PTI The Delhi High Court Friday declined Future Groups plea for stay on an arbitration tribunal order refusing to interfere with the Emergency Award EA which restrained it from going ahead with the Rs 24731 crore merger deal with Reliance Retail Justice Suresh Kumar Kait sought response from US-based e-commerce giant Amazon which had challenged the merger before the Singapore arbitration tribunal under SIAC and listed the appeals by Future Coupons Pvt Ltd FCPL and Future Retail Ltd FRL for further hearing on January 4 Senior counsel Harish Salve appearing for FRL urged the court to pass an interim order clarifying that an earlier order passed by the Supreme Court which stayed all proceedings in relation to the enforcement of the EA would remain in force despite the subsequent order passed by the duly constituted arbitration tribunal I want the court to clarify which order will prevail That Supreme Court order was a consent order This order is in place today After this the tribunal order was passed What is the interim order that Im seeking That the Supreme Court order will continue to operate I dont want to be told that the tribunal order is in force he submitted Senior counsel Parag P Tripathi representing FCPL also urged the high court to reiterate the order of the Supreme Court Kishore Biyani and 15 others including FRL and FCPL have been embroiled in a series of litigations with Amazon an investor in FCPL over the deal with Reliance Following the EA subsequently a three-member arbitral tribunal was constituted to decide the issues arising from the deal During the hearing the court observed that in view of the pendency of related appeals before the apex court it would need a clearance to proceed with the fresh appeals How can you expect interim order to be passed by this court Supreme Court order says proceedings stayed Let us get clearance from Supreme Court that this is the position now that this subsequent order was passed the judge said The court further observed that the order passed by another judge of the high court earlier this year which had upheld the EA was yet to be set aside and only enforcement proceedings had been stayed In both the appeals issue notice Application for ad-interim relief is dismissed the judge ordered Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium and Rajiv Nayar appeared for Amazon and said that the Future group was bound by the EA In its plea FRL has challenged the order of the arbitration tribunal on the ground that it is deeply flawed and is liable to set aside on fact and in law as there is no arbitration agreement between FRL and Amazon Senior lawyer for FRL stated that the deal with REL was time-sensitive and not only the company but thousands of employees would suffer if it does not go through On September 9 the apex court had stayed for four weeks all proceedings before the high court in relation to the implementation of the EA and also directed statutory authorities like National Company Law Tribunal NCLT Competition Commission of India CCI and Securities and Exchange Board of India Sebi not to pass any final order related to the merger deal in the meantime Subsequently the arbitration tribunal under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC on October 21 rejected the plea of FRL to lift the interim stay granted by its EA on October 25 last year observing that the Award were correctly granted Amazon had dragged Future Group to arbitration at Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC in October last year arguing that FRL had violated their contract by entering into the deal with rival Reliance The FRL and FCPL had moved the top court against the high court order of August 17 which said that it would implement the earlier order by its single-judge restraining FRL from going ahead with the deal in pursuance of the EAs award The high court had said that in the absence of a stay it would have to enforce the order passed by its single judge Justice J R Midha on March 18 On March 18 besides restraining FRL from going ahead with its deal with Reliance Retail the court had imposed costs of Rs 20 lakh on the Future Group and others associated with it and ordered attachment of their properties On August 6 the Supreme Court gave the verdict in favour of Amazon and held that EA award restraining the Rs 24731 crore FRL-Reliance Retail merger deal is valid and enforceable under Indian arbitration laws The apex court had also set aside the two orders of February 8 and March 22 of the division bench of the Delhi High Court order which had lifted the single-judges orders staying the FRL-RRL merger A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman since retired had dealt with the larger question and held that an award of an EA of a foreign country is enforceable under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act PTI ADS SA