The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) following a previous split verdict in a misconduct case. The latest ruling resolves a long-standing dispute over alleged professional misconduct.
Mumbai: Today, on July 23, the Bombay High Court has now lifted its earlier order that had stopped Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) from finalising the process to find a new company to handle ground and bridge services at Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport.
This development affects the Turkish firm Çelebi Aviation Holding, whose subsidiary was earlier managing these services.
Also Read: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Dates Announced: To Be Held From June 16-21
This decision came after the Delhi High Court recently dismissed a case filed by Çelebi. The Turkish company had approached the Delhi court against the Indian government’s move to cancel its security clearance, which is required to operate at Indian airports.
Since that petition was rejected, the Bombay High Court decided there was no reason to continue the earlier protection that had been given to Çelebi.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, while announcing this decision, stated:
“Now that Delhi High Court has rejected the writ petition … continuation of protection will not be in aid of arbitral proceedings … Ad interim protection is vacated … It is now clear that holding up the decision of finding a replacement is not possible and tenable.”
The Court also noted that a conciliation process is currently ongoing, which means both sides are trying to settle the dispute through discussions instead of legal proceedings.
If this attempt fails, Çelebi can come back to court and ask for help again under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The judge added:
“Should the conciliation fail and any other interlocutory application found necessary to invoke Section 9, it is open for petitioner to agitate the same as and when such relief is perceived to be necessary.”
The problem began when the Indian government decided to cancel Çelebi’s security clearance. This was reportedly due to national security concerns after Turkey publicly supported Pakistan during a short military conflict between India and Pakistan.
As a result of the clearance being withdrawn, Çelebi’s agreements for providing ground handling services at Mumbai Airport were ended. Çelebi claims this termination was sudden and illegal, and not in line with the contract terms.
After this, MIAL asked Çelebi to transfer all its equipment, properties, and staff to a temporary replacement company, Indo Thai Airport Management Services Pvt. Ltd., until a permanent company was selected. On May 17, MIAL floated a tender to choose a new long-term operator, which would end Çelebi’s role completely.
Çelebi challenged this move, saying the agreement had a clause which required a 30-day notice or “cure period” before the contract could be cancelled. They argued that this was not followed.
Also Read: [Breaking] Major Technical Disruption in Supreme Court Advocate on Record (AOR) Exam
However, MIAL responded by pointing out that Çelebi had itself sent out a notice on the same day its security clearance was revoked.
This notice was addressed to all its business partners across India and declared that Çelebi would be immediately stopping all ground handling operations due to the loss of clearance. According to MIAL, the company had effectively shut its own operations and denied any responsibility.
Earlier, when the case came up during court holidays, the Bombay High Court had noted that Çelebi’s challenge to the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) order was already being considered by the Delhi High Court, particularly with regard to its work at the Delhi International Airport.
A similar case for the Mumbai operations was also before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Considering these ongoing matters, the single-judge bench had initially decided that it would not be appropriate to allow any major changes, like appointing a new service provider, until the core legal issues were settled. For that reason, Çelebi was granted temporary relief.
That relief has now been removed after the Delhi High Court rejected Çelebi’s plea.
Senior Advocate Chetan Kapadia, along with advocates Rohan Aggrawal, Mayank Samuel, Neelanshy Roy, and Sohil Mukadam (instructed by Mayank Samuel of Sirius Legal), appeared for Çelebi.
Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani, with lawyers Shoma Maitra and Nipeksh Arvind Jain (instructed by Wadia Ghandy & Co), represented MIAL.
Case Title:
N Easwaranathan v. State
Click Here to Read Our Reports on AoR
