Disputes concerning eviction from airport premises and validity of license termination are non-arbitrable under AAI Act.

The Petitioners, Survee Shidal and Survee Foods Pvt. Ltd., were granted 7-year licenses by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) to operate restaurants at Juhu Airport

Following notices from the MCGM regarding alleged unauthorized construction, AAI issued termination notices on 22 March 2025, asserting that the licenses were void due to lack of authority in the executing officer and encroachment by the licensees

The Petitioners filed petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim protection and a Section 11 application for the appointment of an arbitrator

Concurrently, the AAI initiated eviction proceedings via the Eviction Officer under Chapter-VA of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994

Chapter-VA (Sections 28-A to 28-R) of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, which constitutes a complete code for the eviction of unauthorized occupants and recovery of airport premises

Section 2(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that the Act shall not affect laws by which certain disputes may not be submitted to arbitration

The "excepted matters" doctrine from Prabartak Commercial Corp Ltd. v. Chief Administrator

Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corp and Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. to affirm that the legislature may reserve certain categories of proceedings for public fora as a matter of public policy

HLV Limited v. Airports Authority of India, which held that eviction from airport land is non-arbitrable

The court reasoned that the Concession Agreements contain specific "carve-out" provisions in Clauses 25.1 and 25.10, which expressly exclude disputes governed by Chapter-VA of the AAI Act from the scope of arbitration

Under Section 28-A(f) of the AAI Act, the Petitioners became "unauthorized occupants" the moment their authority to occupy was determined/terminated on 22 March 2025

Following HLV Limited, the court observed that when a special statute (like the AAI Act) provides a summary procedure via an Eviction Officer and bars the jurisdiction of civil courts (Section 28-M), such matters become non-arbitrable as a matter of public policy

The court rejected the argument that the "validity of termination" is a separate commercial dispute, holding that such a challenge must be raised as a defense before the Eviction Officer

Consequently, since the core dispute (eviction/possession) is non-arbitrable, neither Section 9 nor Section 11 reliefs can be granted

The Petitions under Section 9 were dismissed, and the ad-interim status-quo orders were vacated. The Application under Section 11 was disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioners to seek arbitration only for residual commercial claims (e.g., monetary claims) not covered by Chapter-VA of the AAI Act. No costs were awarded.