SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 946

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
Delhi International Airport Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, AOR Mr. K.P.S. Kohli, Adv. Mr. Kartik Mittal, Adv. Mr. Dheerendra Singh Bisht, Adv. Ms. Yashasvini Chandra, Adv. Ms. Shalini Prasad, Adv. Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mr. Prashanto Chandra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kartikay Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Darshita Sethia, Adv. Mr. Rashi Goswami, Adv. Ms. Yashodhara Burmon Roy, Adv. Mr. Kunal Tandon, Adv. Ms. Shweta Bharti, Adv. Mr. Kr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, AOR Mr. Anil Kr Gulati, Adv. Mr. Naman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nur Tandon, Adv. Mr. Kunal Jindia, Adv. Mr. Nishant Anand, Adv. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. Aanchal Mullick, Adv. Ms. Sanjanthi Sajan Poovayya, Adv. Mr. Manu Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Srishti Widge, Adv. Ms. Raksha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kakker, Adv. Mr. Chirag Nayak, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Buddy Ranganadhan, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prantar Basu Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
For the Respondents: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Manu Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Hemant Sahai, Adv. Ms. Sanjanthi Sajan Poovayya, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Ms. Amrita Narayan, Adv. Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv. Ms. Srishti Widge, Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv. Ms. Aanchal Mullick, Adv. Mr. Chirag Nayak, Adv. Ms. Naina Dubey, Adv. Mr. Raksha Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Raksha Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Aanchal Mullick, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kakker, Adv. Ms. Swet Shikha, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Rakesh, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna,, Adv. Ms. Shwet Shikha, Adv. Mr. Saurobroto Dutta, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rishubh Kapoor, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Raghav Bherwani, Adv. Ms. Anwesha Padhi, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hemant Sahai, Adv. Ms. Amrita Narayan, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Ashwin Rakesh, Adv. Mr. Saurobroto Dutta, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Buddy Ranganadhan, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prantar Basu Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Shrom Sethi, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Ritesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Sarul Jain, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR Ms. Neelam Rathore, Adv. Mr. Lovekesh Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Shubham Seth, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Keshav Thakur, Adv. Mr. Virendra Mehta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Thakur, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Khosla, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR Mr. AP Singh, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Das, Adv. Mr. Tavinder Sidhu, Adv. Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Varnit Vashistha, Adv. M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.

INDEX

A.

Statutory Background

B.

Submissions

C.

Issues

D.

Analysis

i. Authorities exercising ‘adjudicatory functions’ cannot defend their orders in appeal

ii. Necessary and proper parties in regulatory proceedings

iii. The test of quasi-judicial functions: A misnomer

iv. The test for determining an ‘adjudicatory function’: Exploring Sitaram Sugar

v. Whether tariff determination is an adjudicatory function: PTC and GRIDCO

vi. Tariff determination for aeronautical services by AERA is a regulatory function

vii. Interpretation of Sections 18 and 31 of the AERA Act

E.

Conclusion

1. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority1 [“AERA”] has instituted proceedings under Section 31 of the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act 20082 [“AERA Act”] for challenging the judgments of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.3 [“TDSAT”] TDSAT is the Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of the AERA Act and it has the competence to hear appeals against orders of AERA. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals on the

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
            whatsapp-icon Back to top