IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 13393 OF 2025 M/s. Survee Shidal … Petitioner Digitally s S i H gn R e A d D b D y HA Vs.

SHRADDHAKAMLESH KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: Airports Authority of India .. Respondent

2025.07.01 21:17:43 +0530 Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Kevin Pereira and Samiksha Rao i/b Viraj Jadhav, for Petitioner.

Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate a/w. Shilpa Kapil, Chidanand Kapil, Chandni Bavishi and Priti Karbhai, for Respondent AAI.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Date : June 23, 2025 Oral Judgement:

1. This is a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”). The disputes and differences between the parties have arisen in connection with a Concession Agreement dated March 15, 2024 between the Petitioner and the Respondent, Airports Authority of India (“AAI”). The Concession Agreement is scheduled to run for a period of seven years after an initial gestation period of 60 days. It is evident that the Concession Agreement was meant for the Petitioner to run a restaurant / “hang-out” over property at the Juhu Airport, admeasuring approximately 630¹ sq. mtrs. and the operation of the restaurant commenced sometime in 1 The record has variations in the entitlement – a map annexed by the AAI indicates the area

September 2024. The Concession Agreement contains an arbitration agreement.

2. By a notice dated March 22, 2025 (“Termination Notice”), the AAI issued a termination notice essentially stating that the land for which the contract was executed between the parties for operating the restaurant /hangout facility / outlet was strictly confined to such area allotted to the Petitioner, but the Petitioner has gone way beyond the area of 630 sq. mtrs. allocated to him under the Concession Agreement, allegedly occupying 1,225 sq. mtrs., nearly double the area allocated under the Concession Agreement. The operational boundary wall is alleged to have been demolished to enable the alleged trespass by the Petitioner. Consequently, it is claimed by AAI that such conduct is a breach of the Concession Agreement and as a result, the Concession Agreement is sought to be terminated.

3. In passing, the Termination Notice states that “Competent Authority” of the AAI has directed that a preliminary inquiry be conducted into the process of awarding of the contract to look into the allegations of irregularities in the award of the subject contract. This element gains significance because this Petition is but one of several license agreements and concession agreements (ranging from electric vehicle charging stations to of 635 sq. mtrs while the pleadings indicate 630 sq. mtrs. Be that as it may, for all practical purposes of this order, the area is assumed to be 630 sq. mtrs.

restaurants and hang-outs), all of which were terminated on the very same day – March 22, 2025.

4. In all the petitions challenging such terminations, the AAI has taken the primary stance that an earlier airport director of the AAI awarded these contracts without any authority to do so, and that is the core ground for stating that these contracts are liable to be terminated.

5. Mr. Pravin Samdani, Learned Senior Counsel for the AAI submits that there has been a serious lacuna on the part of the erstwhile director who was in charge of the Juhu Airport in awarding contracts to at least eleven persons. The contention is that the said director did not have any authority to initiate the process of granting such concessions in respect of any of the eleven units. 6. It is a matter of record that in at least five other cases, similar Petitions have been filed. By an order dated April 24, 2025, dealing with four such cases, taking on board the consent of the parties and inputs from all parties, all the petitions were disposed of appointing a retired former chief justice of this Court as a Sole Arbitrator to conduct arbitral proceedings. The AAI