Order :

1. These Petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), essentially sought interlocutory protection under the relevant Concession Agreements by which ground handling and bridge mounting services were contracted to be provided by the Petitioner to the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner’s “sister concerns” have been providing identical services across multiple airports in India. The Respondent in the instant case is a joint venture between the Airports Authority of India and a large Indian private sector group. Whether these Concession Agreements were terminable at the sweet will or whether the termination as sought to be effected was for cause, and whether such cause involved a cure period were the issues that have been raised in the first instance in both the Petitions.

3. On May 15, 2025, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security had revoked the security clearance accorded to the Petitioner. When this matter came up before the Vacation Court on May 26, 2025, it had been made clear to the Court that right from May 15, 2025, not only had the entire set of employees on the payroll of the Petitioner has been transitioned to Indo Thai Airport Management Services Private Limited (“Indo Thai”) but also the very same employees, each of whom had individual security clearances, continued to be deployed for the very same work. All the equipment on the balance sheet of the Petitioner were also placed under the control of Indo Thai. In short, work on the ground continued as earlier with the same equipment and the same personnel, with the prime difference being that effectively, the Petitioner’s ownership and management access to the airport premises was cut off forthwith.

4. The Petitioner itself had made a public statement stating that it would no longer be responsible after May 15, 2025, since the Petitioner lost active and physical control over its personnel who had access to the airport premises and to the equipment deployed at the airport premises. Since then, it is Indo Thai that is running ground handling and bridge mounting work at the Mumbai International Airport.

5. The intervention sought by the Petitioner in these Petitions related to the commercial and economic interests in the two Concession Agreements, in the context of the Delhi High Court having conducted a final hearing on an expedited day-to-day basis of Writ Petition (C) No. 6758 of 2025 and Writ Petition (C) No.3759 of 2025, challenging the revocation of the security clearance. Judgement had been reserved and was expected shortly. However, in the interregnum, based on the revocation of the security clearance, the Respondent had not only terminated these Concession Agreements and replaced the Petitioner with Indo Thai, but had also moved on to floating a tender inviting bids for appointment of a permanent and final replacement of the Petitioner.

6. The Petitioner had contended that if there were to be an outcome in the Delhi High Court, he would know where he stood in terms of his rights, but if

he were to be finally and permanently replaced without even giving a chance for the reserved judgement to be pronounced, grave harm would be occasioned which would be irreparable even if the Delhi High Court were to hold that the revocation without notice were to be invalid.

7. The security clearance being a vital statutory approval for continuance of these Concession Agreements, taking note of the fact that the Petitioner’s access had in any case been totally cut off; and indeed of the fact that in any case, the very same equipment and employees were continued to be used at the airport without any change to threat perception (i.e. national security concerns having been addressed), a limited protection was afforded to the Petitioner by ad interim relief against final and permanent replacement until re-opening of the Court. It was made clear that the tender process was not stalled and it could continue until the point of selection of the replac