Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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.  

Similar News