Bombay High Court Vacates Interim Order Restraining Mumbai Airport From Taking Final Decision To Replace Turkish Firm Çelebi

The Bombay High Court this week vacated its earlier order restraining Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) from taking a final decision on the bids to replace Turkey-based Celebi Aviation Holding's subsidiary Celebi NAS for ground and bridge handling services at city's International airport.Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan noted that the Delhi High Court recently dismissed the petition filed by Celebi Aviation Holding challenging the 'security clearance' by India's aviation security regulator - Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) under the Ministry of Civil Aviation of India, which had revoked the security clearance of Celebi Airport Services India of Celebi, citing grounds related to 'national security' with immediate effect. This action was on the heels of the ongoing tension between India and Pakistan and Turkey's support to Pakistan.The revocation on Celebi's security clearance applies to all of its associate entities in India which resulted in several airports including the Delhi and Mumbai International Airports terminating services of the Indian subsidiaries of Celebi.Justice Sundaresan noted that on May 26, he while presiding a vacation court, had granted a limited protection 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 replacement operator, and only the actual final appointment was to be kept on hold.However, with now the Delhi HC dismissing the petition, Justice Sundaresan said, "What becomes inexorably clear is that holding up the final appointment of the replacement operator in Mumbai would no longer be tenable. The continuation of such protection would not be in aid of any final relief that may be claimed in arbitration proceedings between the Petitioner and the Respondent – their contract is a commercial one that depends on the outcome of challenge to revocation of security clearance, and does not really get affected by the merits of the revocation of security clearance."Therefore, prima facie, the judge held, it would not be possible for an Arbitral Tribunal to grant specific performance and cancel the replacement of the Petitioner in the two Concession Agreements, now that the challenge to the grounds of revocation to an identically-placed sister concern has also been judicially ruled on."The ad-interim protection granted on May 26, 2025, is hereby vacated. The Respondent shall be free to replace the Petitioner pursuant to the tender process being conducted," the bench ordered. Further, the bench was informed that a conciliation process is actively underway, and officials of the senior management of the two sides are scheduled to meet soon. However, the judge refused to comment on the differences or disputes between the two."Should any disputes and differences remain, the parties would proceed to arbitration. If they are unable to agree on the arbitrator, needless to say, the jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act would be available for appointment of an arbitrator. If at that stage any specific protective relief is necessary, it would be open to either party to seek relief in a fresh petition under Section 9 of the Act or under Section 17 of the Act before the Arbitral Tribunal," the judge said. In these circumstances, the bench disposed of both the petitions listed before it. "It is made clear, that no further protective or holding measures, one way or the other, remain. The parties are left to their devices and assertion of their respective rights under these Concession Agreements and in law. All contentions of the respective parties on merits are open," the judge observed. Appearance:Senior Advocate Chetan Kapadia along with Advocates Mayank Samuel, Neelanshu Roy and Drumi Nishar instructed by Mayank Samuel (Sirius Legal) appeared for the Petitioner.Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani along with Advocates Sumeet Nankani, Shoma Maitra and Nipeksh Arvind Jain instructed by Wadia Ghandy & Co. represented the MIAL.Case Title: Celebi NAS Airport Services India Pvt Ltd vs Mumbai International Airport Limited [Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) 15961 of 2025]Click Here To Read/Download Order

Bombay High Court Vacates Interim Order Restraining Mumbai Airport From Taking Final Decision To Replace Turkish Firm Çelebi

Narsi Benwal

Tags