SC Condones Delay in Chennai Metro Compensation

Case Name: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.8502/2026
Petitioner: B.M. Purnachandran
Respondents: The Chennai Metro Rail Limited & Ors.
Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Partial Working Days Bench
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Case/Order Numbers Referenced: WA No.854/2015, WA No.1549/2015, WA No.1550/2015, WA No.1645/2015 (final judgments dated 11‑11‑2025 and 29‑04‑2026)
Date of Hearing: 03‑06‑2026
Period of Dispute: Compensation for 19.10 acres of land awarded by the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Petitioner: B.M. Purnachandran (represented by Sr. Adv. Ajit Kumar Sinha and team)
Respondents:

1. Chennai Metro Rail Limited (represented by Ms. Iyer Shruti Gopal, AOR)

2. Respondent No.2 (unnamed in order)

3. Respondent No.3 (unnamed)

4. Respondent No.4 (unnamed)

5. Respondent No.5 (unnamed)

6. Caveator‑respondent No.6 (represented by Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, AOR)

Counsel for Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Adv. Ashwarya Sinha (AOR), Adv. V Jayachandran, Adv. Aditya Malhotra, Adv. Naveen Soni, Adv. Shashwat Sinha, Adv. Bablu
Counsel for Respondents: Sr. Adv. Senthil Jagadeesan, Adv. Anandh K., Adv. Ang Bajaj, AOR Ms. Iyer Shruti Gopal, AOR Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan

Whether, after the award was made by the High Court, the compensation assessed as payable for the 19.10 acres of land was duly deposited in court and/or actually paid to the petitioner.
Procedural objections raised by the petitioner regarding:
Delay in refiling/curing defects (IA No.165316/2026)
Exemption from filing copy of the impugned judgment (IA No.165313/2026)
Exemption from filing other documents (IA No.165312/2026)

The Court observed that the primary question for determination is the status of the compensation (deposit or payment) and therefore limited the notice to that issue.
No substantive finding on the merits of the compensation claim was made at this stage.

Delay Condoned: The Court condoned the filing delay raised by the petitioner.
Notice Issued: The Court directed that a notice be issued, limited to the question of whether the compensation for the 19.10 acres was deposited in court or paid to the petitioner.
Discharge of Caveator‑respondent No.6: The caveator‑respondent No.6 was granted discharge.
Acceptance of Notice by Respondent No.1: Respondent No.1 (Chennai Metro Rail Ltd) accepted the notice; formal service of notice to this respondent was dispensed with.
Notice to Respondents 2‑6: The Court ordered that notice be served to respondents numbered 2 through 6.

Respondent No.1 must comply with the notice without the need for formal service.
Respondents 2‑6 are required to respond to the notice concerning the compensation status.
The petitioner is entitled to receive clarification on whether the compensation amount has been deposited or paid.

The Court’s final order condoned the delay, discharged the caveator‑respondent No.6, accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1, and directed issuance of notice to respondents 2‑6 to ascertain the status of the compensation for the 19.10 acres of land.
No monetary penalties or further enforcement actions were imposed at this stage; compliance with the notice is the immediate next step.