2025 DHC 1522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Airports Authority Of India – Petitioner
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Limited & Anr. – Respondents
O.M.P. (COMM) 185 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Learned SGI with Mr. Karan Lahiri, Mr. Prateek Arora, Ms. Rishieka Ray, Advs.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv with Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Agrawal, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal, Mr. Sanjeev Sheshadri, Advs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and context of the arbitration (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual background of force majeure claim due to covid-19 (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. overview of the challenges against the arbitral award (Para 16) |
| 4. submissions and legal grounds for challenging the award (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 5. arguments in support of the arbitral award (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 6. court's view on the nature of judicial interference (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 7. importance of adhering to business efficacy in contract interpretation (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 8. standard for assessing force majeure in contractual obligations (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 9. details on findings related to force majeure and its evidentiary basis (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 10. findings on the excuse of contractual performance due to covid-19 (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 11. evaluation of the extension of the contract under force majeure (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85) |
| 12. conclusion on the legitimacy of the arbitral award (Para 86 , 87 , 88 , 89) |
| 13. final ruling and dismissal of the challenge to the award (Para 90) |
| 14. order to dismiss the petition and uphold the award (Para 91) |
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.
| S. No | Particulars |
| A. | Preface |
| B. | Factual Matrix |
| C. | Submissions on behalf of Petitioner |
| D. | Submissions on behalf of the MIAL |
| E. | Finding and Analysis |
(A) PREFACE:
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') challenging the impugned arbitral award dated 21.12.2023 as corrected under Section 33 of the Act vide order dated 16.01.2024.
2. Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'AAI' or 'Petitioner') is a statutory authority established under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, responsible for maintaining and managing civil aviation infrastructure in India.
3. Mumbai International Airport Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MIAL' or 'Respondent No.1') is a joint venture entity entrusted with the operation, management, and development of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai ('CSMIA') under an Operation Management and Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'OMDA') dated 04.04.2006 executed between AAI and MIAL.
4. State Bank of India, (hereinafter referred to as 'SBI' or 'Respondent No.2') a public sector bank and the designated escrow agent under the Escrow Agreement executed as part of the financial arrangement governing the OMDA.
(B) FACTUAL MATRIX:
5. Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case as stated in the present petition is that in March 2020, upon the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent governmental restrictions aviation operations were severely disrupted. Consequently, MIAL issued a Force Majeure notice on 17.03.2020 under Article 16 of the OMDA, claiming that the pandemic constituted a Force Majeure event from 13.03.2020. MIAL sought suspension of its Annual Fee ('AF') obligations, citing an adverse financial impact. The said notice was responded by AAI on 24.03.2020, requesting MIAL to provide a Business Plan reflecting the financial impact of the pandemic. On the same day, MIAL requested AAI to instruct SBI within 24 hours to halt transfers from the Proceeds Account to the AAI Fee Account and instead transfer funds to the Surplus Account for operational expenses. AAI, in its reply dated 25.03.2020, pointed out that MIAL's request for a 24-hour response was inconsistent with the 15-day response period stipulated in the OMDA and sought financial records to substantiate MIAL's force majeure claims.
6. On 26.03.2020, MIAL submitted financial statements showing its fund position and urgent pending payments but failed to provide supporting audited records. AAI, upon review, noted that INR 65 crores a







Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI
DMRC Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.
Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India
Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
MMTC Limited v. Vedanta Limited
Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project
Kwality Manufacturing Corporation v. Central Warehousing Corporation
Pure Helium India (P) Limited v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran
Dyna Technologies Vs. Crompton Greaves Limited
Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. Of Police
SAIL v. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd.
Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd.
UHL Power Company Ltd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.
The court confirmed that COVID-19 constituted a Force Majeure event impacting the financial obligations under the OMDA, allowing for necessary contractual reliefs and interpreting the agreement in a ....
The court upheld the arbitral tribunal's ruling that COVID-19 constituted a force majeure event, excusing the obligation to pay the Annual Fee under the OMDA due to significant revenue loss.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial intervention in Section 34 proceedings and the importance of upholding arbitral awards, highlighting the principles of public policy and the inte....
The COVID-19 lockdown is recognized as a force majeure event affecting contractual obligations, necessitating equitable treatment for parties under similar circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of force majeure on contractual obligations, specifically in the context of the OMDA and the transfer of funds from the Proceeds Account....
A contract's explicit provisions govern obligations, and discussions or observations do not equate to legally binding amendments unless formally executed, upholding the fundamental principles of cont....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting contractual provisions in accordance with their plain language and the grounds for challenging an award under Sectio....
The encashment of a performance bank guarantee does not require proof of loss, but must comply with the contract's terms; failure to evaluate these terms constitutes patent illegality.
Point of Law : Non-payment of escalation - Issue of whether the circumstances in which the appellant was placed, entitled him to plead force majeure, or not, is a pure question of fact.
The appeal confirmed that unless fraud or special circumstances exist, arbitrary orders regarding payments or force majeure claims will not suspend contractual obligations, particularly when prior pa....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.