2025:DHC:1523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Airports Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
Delhi International Airport Limited and Another – Respondents
O.M.P. (COMM) No. 186 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants : Tushar Mehta, Raghavendra P. Shankar, Karan Lahiri, Prateek Arora, Neelabh Bist, Rishieka Ray, Pallavi Misra
For the Respondents : Parag Tripathi, Raj Shekhar Rao, Rishi Agarwala, Apoorv P. Tripathi, Dheeresh Kumar Dwivedi, Manu Krishnan, Daksh Arora, Nikhil
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Challenge to arbitral award - The petitioner Airports Authority of India challenged the award favoring Delhi International Airport Ltd., arguing it was contrary to public policy and ignored evidence of the latter’s ability to pay - The tribunal found COVID-19 constituted a force majeure event under Article 16 of the OMDA, excusing DIAL from payment of the Annual Fee from March 2020 to February 2022 due to significant revenue loss. (Paras 1-107)
(B) Force Majeure - Definition and application - The tribunal interpreted 'suspend' and 'excuse' as interchangeable, affirming that DIAL's inability to pay was due to the pandemic's adverse effects on its operations, thus fulfilling the conditions of Article 16.1.2 of the OMDA. (Paras 49, 58, 73, 74, 87-94, 99)
(C) Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards - The court emphasized that it cannot substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator unless the award is perverse or irrational, reaffirming the importance of respecting the arbitral tribunal's findings. (Paras 63-107)
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 DIAL |
| 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. Airports Authority of India (hereinafter referred to "the Petitioner" and/or "AAI") is a statutory authority established under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, responsible for maintaining and managing civil aviation infrastructure in India.
3. Delhi International Airport Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No. 1" and/or "DIAL") is a joint venture entity entrusted with the operation, management, and development of Indira Gandhi International Airport, Mumbai ('IGIA') under an Operation, Management and Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "OMDA") dated 04.04.2006 executed between AAI and DIAL.
4. ICICI Bank limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ICICI' or 'Respondent No.2') is a private sector bank and the designated escrow agent under the Escrow Agreement executed as part of the financial arrangement governing the OMDA. ICICI has been arrayed as a pro forma party in these proceedings.
B. FACTUAL MATRIX
5. Briefly stated the facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that in March 2020, upon the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent governmental restrictions aviation operations were severely disrupted. Consequently, DIAL sought relief under Article 16 of the OMDA, citing Force Majeure vide email dated March 19, 2020 and requested AAI to refrain from instructing the escrow bank regarding the Monthly Annual Fee ("MAF") for April 2020, contending that the existing business plan was no longer applicable. DIAL committed to submitting a provisional business plan for FY 2020-21 by March 31, 2020, taking into account the economic impact of the pandemic. The said request was acknowledged by AAI on March 23, 2020. Consequently, DIAL submitted an interim business plan for April 2020 on March 27, 2020, and sought a three-month waiver upto June, 2020 on MAF payments due to the nationwide lockdown.
6. Thereafter, on March 31, 2020, DIAL formally invoked Force Majeure, asserting that the outbreak of COVID-19 constituted an unforeseeable event under Article 16 of the OMDA, significantly impacting business operations and revenue. DIAL sought a waiver of MAF for April to June 2020 and indicated that its Business Plan for FY 2020-21 would only be finalized after obtaining Board approval by June or mid-July 2020. In response, AAI, through an email dated April 2, 2020, requested a board resolution confirming the invocation of Force Majeure. DIAL, on April 3, 2020, informed AAI that it was in the process of securing Board approval and requested permission for the Escrow Bank to retain funds equivalent to MAF for April in the AAI Fee Account until approval was obtained.
7. Despite disputing DIAL‘s entitlement to invoke Force Majeure under Article 16.1.1, AAI, acting in good faith, accepted DIAL‘s request and granted a three-month deferral of MAF payments from April to June 2020 on a "without prejudice" basis. Under this arrangement, DIAL was required to pay the cumulative MAF for April, May, and June 2020, computed on actual revenues, by July 15, 2020, without incurring interest under Article 11.1.2.2. Additionally, AAI extended the submission deadline for the business plan for FY 2020-21 from March 31, 2020 to June 30, 2020. However, DIAL did not provide the required board resolution confirming the invocation of Force Majeure and continued to pay the MAF for April, May, and June 2020.
8. Through a letter dated April 16, 2020, DIAL sought adjustments for an alleged excess Annual Fee payment from the previous financial year. In a response dated April 28, 2020, AAI informed th











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 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 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....
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 importance of interpreting contractual provisions in accordance with their plain language and the grounds for challenging an award under Sectio....
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....
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....
Demonetisation constituted a force majeure event under the contract, materially affecting obligations, thus allowing waiver of payment claims.
The introduction of GST constituted a 'change in law' and had a material adverse effect on the obligations of the parties under the Contract Agreement, entitling the respondent to remission of paymen....
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.