Latest news with #AAIAct
Time of India
15-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
HC dismisses AI staff appeals against eviction from Kalina
Mumbai: Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed appeals filed by Shilpi Minz and other Air India staffers against their eviction from the AI staff colony in Kalina, Santacruz East. HC, though, continued a stay on their eviction for another six weeks to enable them to appeal to Supreme Court. The staffers and AI, following its privatisation, were locked in a legal battle over eviction from their staff quarters. The employees, in their appeals against Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) and others, said there were five broad grounds in their favour. The single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, in her judgment, said the land belonged to Airport Authority of India (AAI) and, "As the lands leased to Air India Ltd constitute airport premises, the buildings cannot be divorced from the leased lands to constitute public premises by applying the concept of dual ownership post disinvestment," She added, "Once the residential accommodations are held to be airport premises, it is the AAI Act which would be applicable and not the PPE (Public Premises Eviction) Act. " You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Following earlier HC orders giving staffers time until Sept 24, 2022, after housing accommodation by AI to staff was withdrawn, the HC noted that of 1,683 flats located in 106 buildings, 216 flats remain occupied. Upon disinvestment, no right remained to continue to occupy the residential accommodation, the HC said. The HC also held that leasehold rights in the housing colony lands were transferred to MIAL upon the disinvestment of Air India Ltd. Through advocates Mihir Desai, Ashok Shetty, and Rita Joshi, they argued the right to retain their quarters was pending before the SC. Besides, AI and the Centre suggested the PPE Act would apply and MIAL or AAI cannot invoke eviction action as the AAI Act doesn't apply. The staffers are from AI, Air India Engineering Services Ltd, and AI Airport Services Ltd. The colony is maintained by Air India Staff Colony Associations, which the staffers said are in possession of the staff colonies entrusted to them by Air India. After hearing senior counsel Vikram Nankani for MIAL and Shilpa Kapil for AAI, who said the eviction order under the law is justified, the HC dismissed the appeal. The HC said, "No right in the housing colonies' lands or the housing colonies remained with Air India Ltd upon disinvestment and no such right can be claimed by its employees." The HC also said proceedings pending before the SC can't be a ground to stay the eviction proceedings, especially when the apex court did not interfere with the institution of eviction proceedings.
Indian Express
15-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Bombay HC dismisses appeals against eviction from Air India Colony, stays order by 6 weeks
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed appeals filed by staff members residing at Air India Colony at Kalina, Santacruz, challenging eviction order. On request by appellants, the HC stayed operation of its verdict for six weeks to enable them to approach the Supreme Court to challenge the same. The colony, spread over 184 acres, houses 350 families employed with the airline who are against the handover. As part of its expansion plan, the Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), controlled by Adani Airport Holdings Limited, initiated the demolition of 19 vacant buildings at the Air India Colony amid protests by Air India employees. In February 2024, the HC rejected a plea by Air India Staff Colony Association, which alleged that the demolition action was illegal. The land on which the colony was built was owned by the state government and was leased to the Airports Authority of India (AAI), which had given the land to Air India. A single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh passed a verdict on group of pleas challenging the August 26, 2024, final order of eviction officer appointed under section 28B of AAI Act, 1984, that ordered handing over of the possession of respective flats situated in the Air India Housing Colony in Kalina area. The eviction officer had passed the decision on MIAL's application seeking initiation of eviction proceedings against the respondent employees of Air India Limited as unauthorised occupant of airport premises. The said decision noted that Air India employees did not have the right, title and interest in the building, the employees had no right to continue to occupy the premises, therefore they were required to be evicted. In September 2024, senior advocate Vikram Nankani for MIAL made a statement that pending disposal of appeals, the eviction orders will not be implemented except in case of retired employees. Senior advocate Mihir Desai for the appellants argued that their leave and licence agreements were not yet terminated as per law. He added that as the subject area was not airport premises, it did not fall under the said category of AAI Act. However, Nankani for MIAL denied the appellants' claims. Justice Deshmukh held that the lands on which housing colonies are located are owned by AAI and constitute airport premises under the AAI Act. The HC further noted that the lease hold rights in the colony lands were transferred to MIAL on disinvestment of Air India Ltd. 'As the housing colonies constructed on the airport land yield to the lessor on disinvestment, the same constitutes airport premises. In any event, Air India Asset Holding Company Limited (AIAHCL) has handed over the possession of the housing colonies to MIAL,' the bench added. The judge further noted that 'the housing accommodation facility advanced by Air India Ltd to its employees stood withdrawn and leave and license stood terminated' and the time was given by HC to vacate the premises by September 24, 2022. 'No right in the housing colonies lands or the housing colonies remained with Air India Ltd upon disinvestment and no such right can be claimed by its employees,' the bench said. The court further stated that as the subject lands and housing colonies form airport premises, the AAI Act will be applicable to them instead of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
Time of India
26-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Multiplex moves HC against closure order of Aerohub
Chennai: PVR Inox has moved Madras high court challenging the proposed closure of its multiplex at Aerohub located in Chennai airport. Admitting the plea on Thursday, Justice V Anand Venkatesh ordered the maintenance of the status quo until July 8. Aggrieved by an order issued by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) dated June 20, refusing permission to operate the multiplex at Aerohub, PVR approached the court. When the plea came up for hearing, senior advocate P S Raman, representing PVR, submitted that the petitioner was a sub-licensee of Meenambakkam Realty Pvt Ltd, with which AAI entered into a development contract for the construction of Aerohub. While AAI prematurely terminated the development contract with Meenambakkam Realty, it did not order the closure of any of the commercial establishments run by sub-licensees. However, it insisted upon the closure of the multiplex alone on the ground that a cinema hall was not permissible under the Airports Authority of India Act, Raman said. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai Pointing out that PVR invested 20 crore in the multiplex, he submitted that AAI could not project the operation of a cinema hall in the airport as an illegal activity and that it is bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel since the construction of the cinema hall was done with the full consent of AAI, which approved the building plan. Raman added that the AAI Act does not contain any express prohibition on the operation of cinema halls at the airports, as it states that the functions of AAI would include the establishment and maintenance of hotels, restaurants, or restrooms either at airports or near the airports. Representing the AAI, additional solicitor-general A R L Sundaresan submitted that AAI did not sign any direct contract with PVR.
The Hindu
26-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
PVR INOX moves Madras High Court again challenging proposed closure of multiplex at Chennai airport's Aerohub
PVR INOX has approached the Madras High Court again with a new writ petition challenging an order passed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) on June 20, 2025 refusing to permit the operation of a five-screen multiplex at the Chennai airport's multi level car parking-cum-commercial complex named 'Aerohub.' Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, on Thursday (June 26) directed the AAI to file its counter affidavit by July 8 and ordered maintenance of status quo till then, since senior counsel P.S. Raman, representing PVR INOX, reported that the company had invested ₹20 crore on the multiplex and that it could not be closed down at will. On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan, assisted by AAI counsel Ramaswamy Meyyappan, told the court nothing would happen if the Chennai city is devoid of just one multiplex. He also brought it to the notice of the court that AAI had not signed any direct contract with the multiplex operator. In his submissions, Mr. Raman said, AAI had entered into a development contract with Meenambakkam Realty Private Limited, a special purpose vehicle floated by Olympia Techpark (Chennai) Private Limited, for the construction of Aerohub and that PVR INOX was a sub-licencee of Meenambakkam Realty. Following disputes, AAI had prematurely terminated the development agreement with Meenambakkam Realty but did not order closure any of the commercial establishments run by sub-licencees but for insisting upon closure of the multiplex alone on the ground that cinema hall was not permissible under the AAI Act of 1994. Mr. Raman contended the AAI Act does not contain any express prohibition on operation of cinema halls at the airports. He said, Section 12(f) of the Act only states that the functions of AAI would include the establishment and maintenance of hotels, restaurants or restrooms either at the airports or near the airports. 'If it is the case of AAI that nothing but for hotels, restaurants and restrooms can be operated by AAI, then how is it that Ramraj Cotton is selling dhotis and Higginbothams is selling books. There is a gymnasium too and every other conceivable activity that could be found in any other shopping mall is found in the Aerohub too,' he said. Contending the AAI could not project the operation of a cinema hall in the airport as an illegal activity, the senior counsel said, the authority was bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel since the construction of the cinema hall was done with the full consent of AAI which had approved the building plan.
The Hindu
19-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
PVR INOX multiplex at Chennai airport's Aerohub faces closure due to legal dispute
The five-screen PVR INOX multiplex operating at the Aerohub, a commercial space attached to the multi-level car park (MLCP) in Chennai airport, is facing a threat of closure since the Airports Authority of India (AAI) had taken a stand that operation of a cinema hall is not a permissible activity under the AAI Act of 1994. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court has, however, directed the AAI to maintain status quo until the authority considers and disposes of, in accordance with law, a representation made to it by PVR Inox on May 29, 2025 seeking permission to continue its operations at the Aerohub. The direction was issued after Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan, assisted by AAI standing counsel Ramaswamy Meyyappan, told the court that AAI would certainly a take decision in line with Articles 41 and 42 of the MLCP development agreement and convey it to the multiplex chain. The orders were passed while disposing of a writ petition filed by PVR INOX to restrain AAI from interfering with the operation of the multiplex. Senior counsel P.S. Raman, representing the petitioner, told the court that AAI had invited tenders in 2017 for development of the MLCP with integrated commercial infrastructure at the Chennai airport. The dispute Olympia Techpark (Chennai) Private Limited turned out to be successful bidder and it floated a special purpose vehicle titled Meenambakkam Realty Private Limited which, in turn, entered into a development agreement with AAI in 2018 to develop, build, operate and maintain the facility for a period of 15 years. Thereafter, AAI obtained environment clearance from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests in December 2018 and the application for environment clearance specifically included the area earmarked for the multiplex. Therefore, AAI was fully cognizant of the construction of cinema halls even as early as in 2018, Mr. Raman said. He added that AAI had also sanctioned the construction plans in 2019 and 2021 which had explicit mention about the cinema halls in the Aerohub and that in 2021, the authority had sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) too from the Greater Chennai City Commissioner of Police for the cinema halls. It was only on the basis of all these documents, PVR INOX had entered into a sub-licencing agreement with Meenambakkam Realty in November 2022 for operating the multiplex and commenced screening movies from February 1, 2023. The sub-licencing tenure was for a period of 13.5 years. However, on July 21, 2023, the AAI wrote a letter to Meenambakkam Realty stating it had been decided to close down the multiplex since running of cinema halls was not permissible under the AAI Act. The letter had been signed by Joint General Manager (Commercial) M. Selvanayagam on behalf of the Airport Director. Immediately, Meenambakkam Realty approached the Delhi High Court and obtained an interim order. Thereafter, an arbitral tribunal was constituted to resolve the dispute and the tribunal, in February 2024, stayed the operation of the July 2023 letter thereby providing interim protection to the developer. Premature termination Thereafter, the interim order was vacated and Meenambakkam Realty conveyed a startling information to PVR INOX on May 15, 2025 that its 2018 development agreement with AAI had been terminated prematurely and that AAI had decided to maintain the entire 2,47,202 square feet complex constructed on 4.5 acres of land on its own. However, since Articles 42 and 43 of the development agreement empowers AAI to permit sub-licencees to continue on mutually negotiable terms and conditions, PVR INOX had given a representation to the authority on May 29 to permit the operation of the multiplex dehors the termination of the agreement with Meenambakkam Realty.
