Bombay High Court: The present petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’), was filed by Celebi NAS Airport Services India (P) Ltd. (‘Celebi NAS’), seeking interlocutory protection against its replacement by another operator at the Mumbai International Airport following revocation of its security clearance. A Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., dismissed the petition holding that recently Delhi High Court upheld the revocation of security clearance, hence, no interim relief could be granted. The Court emphasised that Arbitral Tribunal could not grant specific performance and cancel the replacement of Celebi NAS in the two Concession Agreements, after the challenge to the grounds of revocation to an identically placed concern had also been judicially ruled on.
Background:
Celebi NAS had entered into two Concession Agreements with Mumbai International Airport Ltd. (‘MIAL’) to provide ground handling and bridge mounting services. Its ‘sister concerns’ had been providing identical services across multiple airports in India. On 15-05-2025, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security had revoked Celebi NAS’s security clearance, effectively preventing it from operating at the airport. Consequently, Celebi NAS’s equipment and personnel were transitioned into Indo Thai Airport Management Services (P) Ltd. (‘Indo Thai’), which continued to be deployed for the same work.
Celebi NAS made a public statement that it had no active or physical control over its personnel who had access to the airport premises and to the equipment deployed at the airport premises from 15-05-2025. It contended that a Delhi High Court outcome would clarify its rights, but being permanently replaced before the reserved judgment was pronounced would cause irreparable harm, even if the Court later found the revocation without notice invalid.
MIAL while addressing the national security concerns, alleged that the security clearance was a vital statutory approval for the continuance of these Concession Agreements. Taking note of Celebi Nas’s access having been totally cut off, and the same equipment and employees being continued without change to threat perception, a limited protection was afforded by ad interim relief against final replacement until re-opening of the Court. The tender process was not stalled and could continue until selection of the replacement operator, with only the final appointment kept on hold.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court considering the outcome of the Delhi High Court’s dismissal in Celebi Airport Services India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4755. filed by Celebi NAS’s sister concern and upholding the validity of the revocation, observed that holding up the final appointment of the replacement operator in Mumbai would no longer be tenable. The Court emphasised that the continuation of such protection would not be in aid of any final relief that may be claimed in arbitration proceedings, since the contract was a commercial one that depended on the outcome of the challenge to the revocation of security clearance, and did not really get affected by the merits of the revocation of security clearance.
The Court clarified that, it would not be possible for an Arbitral Tribunal to grant specific performance and cancel the replacement of Celebi NAS in the two Concession Agreements, after the challenge to the grounds of revocation to an identically placed sister concern had also been judicially ruled on.
Accordingly, the Court vacated the interim protection granted on 26-05-2025, allowing MIAL to procced with final appointment of a replacement operator pursuant to the tender process being conducted. However, the Court encouraged both the parties to pursue conciliation and, if needed, arbitration for any unresolved disputes. The Court further observed that if parties were unable to agree on the arbitrator, jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act would be available and, if specific protective relief was necessary, either party might seek relief under Section 9 or Section 17 of the Act.
The Court held that both captioned proceedings stood disposed of, and no further protective measures remained. The Court therefore concluded that both the parties might assert their respective rights under the Concession Agreements and law, with all contentions on merits left open.
[Celebi NAS Airport Services India (P) Ltd. v. Mumbai International Airport Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2754, decided on 23-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Chetan Kapadia, Senior Advocate a/w. Mayank Samuel, Neelanshu Roy and Drumi Nishar i/b Mayank Samuel (Sirius Legal).
For the Respondent: Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate a/w. Sumeet Nankani, Shoma Maitra and Nipeksh Arvind Jain i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co.
Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 HERE
