R.V.RAVEENDRAN, K.S.Radhakrishnan
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
R.V. Raveendran, J. —Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel.
2. The Airport Authority of India (second respondent herein, AAI for short) established under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (‘Act’ for short) to be responsible for the development, operation and maintenance of airports in India. The Government of India took a policy decision to amend the Act by Amendment Act 43 of 2003 enabling the AAI to lease the airport premises, to private operators with prior approval of the Central Government and assign its functions to its lessees except air traffic services and watch and ward. In pursuance of the policy of the government in this behalf, the AAI decided to entrust the work of modernisation and upgradation of the Mumbai Airport to a private operator, to serve the sharply increasing volume of passengers and for better utilisation of the Airport. AAI initiated a competitive bidding process in that behalf. In the information memorandum that was issued to the prospective bidders it was represented that the entire airport premises will be included in the transaction including all encroached land but excluding only the following areas : (i) New ATC tower; (ii) AAI sta
Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. [2007 (10) SCC 82].(Para 9)—Discussed.
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra [1995 (3) SCC 147. (Para 11) —Relied.
Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Invest Import – 1981 (1) SCC 80. (Para 12) —Relied.
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.