Bombay High Court Refuses EV Licensees Interim Relief In Arbitration Over Mumbai Airport Charging Stations

The Bombay High Court has refused to allow three EV charging station licence holders to restart their projects on Airports Authority of India (AAI) land in Mumbai, holding that such relief could effectively restore performance under license agreements that AAI had sought to terminate.

Justice Amit Borkar observed that the interim reliefs sought under the Arbitration Act were mandatory in nature to a considerable extent and went beyond merely preserving the existing position.

“Petitioners do not merely seek preservation of existing position. They seek permission to restart work. They seek continuation of construction activities. They seek restoration of performance. Grant of such relief would change existing position instead of merely preserving it,” the court observed.

The court held that mandatory interim relief could be granted only in exceptional cases where an unusually strong prima facie case was shown and refusal of relief could cause an injustice that could not later be corrected.

It ultimately refused to stay AAI's December 31, 2024 stop-work communication and March 22, 2025 termination notices, declined permission to resume the EV projects and dismissed the petitions.

The dispute concerned EV charging stations proposed on AAI land at Juhu Airport and other locations in Vile Parle, Mumbai.

AAI issued tenders for the projects in August 2024. In the lead matter, Vision Enterprises was declared the successful bidder and entered into Licence Agreements with AAI in October 2024.

Under the agreements, Vision Enterprises was given around 5,000 square metres of land for the EV project for 10 years. Work began after AAI approved the layout and the petitioner made the required payments.

On December 31, 2024, the Officiating Airport Director directed the petitioner to stop all work on the EV project at Juhu Airport, citing “administrative reasons”. The petitioner sought withdrawal of the direction and later approached the high court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

AAI subsequently issued termination notices dated March 22, 2025.

The petitioners argued that they had invested substantial amounts and altered their position on the strength of the Licence Agreements.

The court found that the petitioners had raised triable issues, including disputes over the authority of AAI officers, the tender process and the validity of the termination notices. But it held that those issues did not, by themselves, justify an order requiring AAI to restore performance under agreements it had sought to terminate.

Allowing the EV projects to restart could amount to granting specific performance at the interim stage and compelling AAI to continue the contractual relationship despite its decision to terminate the agreements, the court observed.

Justice Borkar also rejected AAI's broader contention that termination automatically took every dispute outside arbitration. He held that the exclusion under Clause 27.10 applied to matters for which the eviction and recovery procedure under Chapter VA of the Airports Authority of India Act was provided. It did not mean that every dispute arising after termination was non-arbitrable.

The court held that where a dispute concerns eviction of an unauthorised occupant or recovery of airport premises after determination of a licence, Chapter VA operates as the complete mechanism and such disputes fall within the exclusion under Clause 27.10.

But disputes concerning matters such as the legality of termination, authority of contracting parties, alleged fraud, mala fides or interpretation of contractual clauses may not be excluded merely because Chapter VA exists.

The court nevertheless held that the requested interim relief could not be considered separately from the statutory mechanism for eviction and recovery of airport premises. Staying the termination notices would prevent AAI from treating the petitioners as unauthorised occupants and would keep the Chapter VA remedy in abeyance.

The petitions were accordingly dismissed. The court rejected the prayers to stay the December 31 communication and March 22 termination notices, resume execution of the EV project, and restrain AAI from acting on the termination notices.

It clarified that its observations were prima facie and confined to the Section 9 proceedings. The validity of the license agreements and termination notices, authority of the officers concerned, maintainability of arbitral proceedings were all left open for adjudication before the appropriate forum.

For Petitioner (Vision Enterprises): Advocates Karl Tamboly, Sanit Shukla and Vaibhavi Bhalerao, instructed by Trilegal.

For Petitioners (Zee Media LLP and Sanjay Surendrakumar Raval): Advocates Ashutosh Kulkarni, Gaurav Sharma, Anushree Maheshwari, Rushikesh Bhadre, Pralhad Paranjape and Shweta More.

For Respondent (Airports Authority of India): Senior Advocate Pravin Samdani with Advocates Shilpa Kapil, Chidanand Kapil, Darshit Jain, Aishwarya Mall, and Vishwabharati Devkhile.