Registrar: “Curative Petitions filed were heard and disposed of in an Open Court. In this regard, Rule 2(1), Order XLVIII, S.C.R., 2O13 reads: Petitioner, in Curative Petition, shall aver specifically, grounds mentioned therein had been taken in Review Petition and it was dismissed by circulation. Since aforesaid Review Petitions were disposed of in an Open Court and not by circulation, aforementioned Curative Petitions are declined for registration…”

The issue we have to address is as to whether Registry has power to dismiss Curative Petitions solely on ground no averment has been made to the effect, Review Petitions were dismissed by circulation. We accept Learned Senior Advocate, Raju Ramachandran’s submission, this is a matter which ought to be decided by a Bench of this Court and not by a Registry. This is a judicial exercise.

– Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose, M/s. Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries v. Assam State Electricity Board, 26.02.2024.

Curatives should not be used to open floodgates and create a 4th or 5th stage of Court intervention in an Arbitral Award. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 131 restored a ‘patently illegal’ Arbitral Award which saddled a public utility with an exorbitant liability. Court erred in interfering.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., [Curative Petition (C) Nos. 108-109 of 2022 in Review Petition (C) Nos. 1158-1159 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5627-5628 of 2021] decided on 10.04.2024.