Back
rejects for EV charging licensees terminated by
The has dismissed Section 9 arbitration petitions filed by three EV charging station licensees against the (), refusing to stay 's termination notices and declining permission to resume work on airport premises.
Justice Amit Borkar of the delivered the common judgment on , in four connected petitions arising from identical facts — licence agreements for EV charging stations at Juhu Airport and surrounding areas in Vile Parle, Mumbai.
When a tender becomes a battlefield
The dispute traces back to , when issued e-tenders inviting bids for licences to supply, install, test, commission, operate and maintain EV charging stations at Juhu Airport, including Car Park I. In the lead matter, — the sole proprietorship of Satyavan Vishnu Agate — was declared the successful bidder. Letters of Intent followed on , and formal Licence Agreements were executed on , granting approximately 5,000 square metres of airport land for a ten-year term.
The licencee deposited ₹7.5 lakh as , obtained layout approvals the day after the agreement was signed, and commenced construction after possession was handed over on . The project appeared to be progressing smoothly — until , when the Officiating Airport Director directed the petitioner to halt all work citing "administrative reasons."
When sought clarification and received none, it approached the High Court under . During the pendency of those proceedings — and before the matter could be heard on — issued termination notices dated , alleging that the petitioner and its officers had altered certain clauses of the agreements, particularly .
The question: two competing visions
The petitioners argued that the survived termination and that the disputes — concerning the legality of the stop-work communication, the authority of officers, alleged irregularities in the tender process, and the validity of termination — must be adjudicated by an . They relied on the Seven Judge Bench decision in , the subsequent judgment in , and , which held that where the validity of termination remains under adjudication, eviction proceedings should not be prematurely pursued.
, led by , countered that Chapter VA of the Act, 1994 constitutes a for eviction and recovery of airport premises. Relying on
and the coordinate bench decision in
,
submitted that disputes relating to eviction are "
" under
of the Licence Agreements, which expressly excludes from arbitration
"matters for which
is provided under
."
Charting a middle path
Justice Borkar declined to accept either extreme. He held that disputes exclusively relating to eviction of and recovery of airport premises fall outside arbitration by virtue of . However, he rejected 's broader contention that merely issuing a termination notice extinguishes the for every dispute.
"
may not be capable of such wide interpretation,"
the Court observed.
"Words used by parties appear having considerable importance. Clause nowhere says that every dispute arising after termination shall stand excluded from arbitration... Exclusion appears much narrower. Parties agreed that arbitration shall not be available 'in matters for which
is provided under
.'"
The Court harmonised the competing authorities, holding that each operates in its own field: the Seven Judge Bench governs the limited scope of at the referral stage; Escorts Heart Institute governs situations where validity of termination remains under adjudication; defines the limits of the Eviction Officer's jurisdiction; and and Survee Shidal govern disputes relating to eviction and recovery under Chapter VA.
"If every challenge to termination becomes
only because termination notice has been issued, then licensor may, by its own act of terminating agreement, become capable of putting end to
regarding every contractual dispute,"
the Court warned.
Why failed
Having established that arbitration survived, the Court nonetheless refused the interim reliefs. The petitioners sought withdrawal of the December 31 stop-work communication, stay of the termination notices, permission to restart the EV project, and an injunction restraining from acting upon the termination notices.
"Petitioners do not merely seek preservation of existing position. They seek permission to restart work. They seek continuation of construction activities. They seek restoration of performance. Grant of such relief would change existing position instead of merely preserving it,"
Justice Borkar observed.
The Court reasoned that granting the reliefs as prayed would effectively continue the Licence Agreements throughout the pendency of arbitration, prevent from treating the petitioners as , and keep the Chapter VA remedy in abeyance. In substance, the petitioners would receive the same commercial benefit they proposed to claim before the — a result that Section 9 does not contemplate without .
The final order
The Court rejected 's regarding complete absence of arbitral jurisdiction but dismissed the petitions. The operative directions were nuanced:
- Disputes exclusively relating to eviction and recovery of airport premises are not ;
- The does not stand extinguished merely because termination notices were issued;
- Jurisdiction of the Eviction Officer under Chapter VA and remedies under the Arbitration Act operate in their respective fields;
- Grant of the reliefs as prayed would amount to granting final relief and would restrain from exercising powers under Chapter VA;
- All contentions on merits — including the legality of the Licence Agreements, the termination notices, the authority of officers, and the of arbitral proceedings — remain open for adjudication before the appropriate forum.
The Court also rejected the petitioners' request to continue the for four weeks, and made no order as to costs.
What this means for airport licences and public contracts
The judgment offers a principled framework for disputes involving statutory authorities and airport premises: termination of a licence does not automatically kill the arbitration clause, but will not be granted where its practical effect is to compel a public authority to continue a contractual relationship it has lawfully sought to end.
For EV charging infrastructure developers and other commercial licensees of , the message is clear — pursue contractual remedies through arbitration, but do not expect Section 9 courts to restore performance under terminated agreements while the statutory eviction machinery under Chapter VA awaits. The petitioners retain the right to raise all defences before the Eviction Officer and may still invoke arbitration for disputes falling outside the eviction framework, but their interim battle at the has come to a close.
