Legal Battle at the Airport: An Analysis of the Writ Appeal in Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore) Private Limited v. Bangalore International Airport
Bangalore International Airport vs Menzies Aviation Bobba Bangalore
23 May, 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble M.G.S. Kamal
This is with regards a writ appeal filed in a case involving Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore) Private Limited and Bangalore International Airport Limited. The appellant (respondent No. 1) filed the appeal to set aside an order passed in a previous writ petition connected to the case.
The petitioner, Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore) Private Limited (referred to as “MABP”), was awarded a contract by the appellant to provide services for cargo terminals at Kempegowda International Airport. The petitioner sought an extension of the contract, but the request was rejected, and the appellant initiated a tender process. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the extension and the tender process.
During the pendency of the first writ petition, the tender process was completed, and the contract was awarded to respondent No. 2, Menzies Aviation PLC. The petitioner filed a second writ petition, and an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge directing the parties to maintain status quo and operate under the existing agreement until the next date of hearing.
The appellant argues that the interim order leads to a chaotic situation because the existing contract and permissions expire, while the new contract awarded to respondent No. 2 becomes effective. They claim that the petitioner would not have valid licenses or permissions to operate, while respondent No. 2 would be prevented from carrying out operations despite having valid licenses.
The appellant also disputes the petitioner’s claim that their services were satisfactory, citing communication and a personal meeting that highlighted the need for quality enhancement. They argue that the interim order effectively grants a final relief to the petitioner without proper assessment and approval.
The petitioner opposes the appellant’s arguments, stating that the interim order only grants a three-week extension and that they can obtain necessary approvals and licenses within that time if the appellant cooperates. They argue that they have been performing their contractual obligations satisfactorily and that continuing the status quo until the final adjudication of the case is just and reasonable.
Respondent No. 4 raises issues regarding the legality and validity of a resolution related to the contract and disputes between stakeholders. Respondent No. 2 argues that the interim order, if enforced, would result in a chaotic situation at the airport.
The document refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case, emphasizing that courts should be cautious when interfering with the awarding of tenders or contracts involving technical issues and public services. The court notes that the petitioner is responsible for obtaining necessary approvals and licenses and that the appellant is not obligated to provide assistance in this matter.
Based on the submissions and considerations, the court concludes that the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is scheduled for a hearing on merits in the second week of June 2023.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR