As per case facts, DMRC and DAMEPL had a concession agreement for a metro line. DAMEPL halted operations, citing defects and safety issues, and terminated the agreement. DMRC initiated arbitration, ... and the tribunal awarded significant payments to DAMEPL. While a Single Judge upheld the award, the High Court's Division Bench set it aside as perverse and patently illegal for overlooking crucial evidence like the CMRS certificate and misinterpreting the termination clause. The Supreme Court, in appeal, restored the arbitral award. The question arose whether the Supreme Court was justified in restoring this potentially illegal arbitral award, considering the alleged misinterpretation of contract terms and ignored vital safety certifications, which potentially led to a grave miscarriage of justice. Finally, the Supreme Court, invoking its curative jurisdiction, concluded that its earlier judgment had caused a grave miscarriage of justice by restoring a patently illegal award. The Court found the arbitral tribunal had unreasonably interpreted the termination clause and overlooked vital evidence, including the joint application to CMRS and its certificate, which were relevant to the "effective steps" taken and line safety. Thus, the curative petitions were allowed, reinstating the Division Bench's judgment, and directing a refund of amounts paid, acknowledging the arbitration process was perverted to provide an undeserved windfall.