Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Supreme Court Directs Re-evaluation of Airport Tariff Calculation Method, Emphasizes Need for ‘Single Till’ Mechanism

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has directed a fresh examination of the method used to calculate the Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB) for airport charges. This direction comes in the wake of applications by Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) and Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), citing a newly discovered piece of evidence – a letter dated 24.05.2011.

In their judgment, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M. M. Sundresh emphasized the complexities involved in the calculation of HRAB. “The nature of jurisdiction exercised by this Court is predicated on two specialist authorities/tribunals having applied their mind to it,” Justice Kaul observed, highlighting the nuanced nature of the issue.

The central contention of the applicants was the adoption of a ‘single till’ mechanism, where both aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues are considered as composite revenue for tariff fixation. The Court recognized the significance of this approach in the context of airport operations and revenue calculations. “It would be difficult to have a re-appreciation of evidence and facts, especially when the admitted position is that the TDSAT has not opined on it,” Justice Kaul remarked, acknowledging the need for expert opinion from the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

The Supreme Court’s decision to remit the matter to TDSAT for a fresh look at the HRAB computation using the ‘single till’ mechanism marks a crucial step in addressing the ongoing dispute over airport charges. The TDSAT is now expected to independently review the impact of the 2011 letter from the Ministry of Civil Aviation to the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority and determine the appropriate method for HRAB calculation.

Date of Decision: 04 December  2023  

DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. VS AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY & ORS.  

Latest Legal News