Refusing to entertain the challenge on the bidding process for the license to operate duty-free and retail outlets at the Noida International Airport, the Delhi High Court ruled that parties to a dispute can, by agreement, neither create jurisdiction in a Court, which otherwise has not been conferred with such jurisdiction, nor can the parties oust the jurisdiction of a Court which otherwise has the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute.
Since, in the present case, no cause of action had accrued to the petitioners within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Delhi, no benefit can be derived by the petitioners to invoke the ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ clause occurring in the subject Request for Proposal (RFP) inviting bids for maintenance and management of duty-free outlets and retail outlets at the Airport.
The Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that a High Court has jurisdiction if the cause of action arises “wholly or in part” within its territory. However, for a fact to constitute a part of a cause of action, it must be a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action and have a direct nexus with the dispute. Trivial or irrelevant facts do not confer jurisdiction.
The Bench clarified that the requirement to deposit fees in a Delhi bank account was merely a facilitation for electronic payment, as in the modern era of NEFT/RTGS, the situs of the bank is not a material fact that confers jurisdiction. Further, the press release on the website mentioning “New Delhi, May 13, 2024” was deemed a formatting convention and not germane to the legal dispute.
The Bench factually verified that the Letter of Intent to Award (LoIA) was issued from Yamuna International Airport’s Noida office address, as mentioned at the bottom of the letter, rendering the petitioners’ claim incorrect. Additionally, the execution of a confidentiality undertaking by the petitioners in Delhi was an act of the petitioners, not the respondent, and thus not integral to the cause of action against the respondent. Similarly, prior agreements between the respondents executed in Delhi had no bearing on the current tender dispute.
Briefly, the Noida International Airport is being developed on a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model, and Zurich Airport International AG was awarded the development contract, which incorporated Yamuna International Airport (YIA) Pvt Ltd. as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for this purpose. In November 2023, the YIA issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the duty-free and retail outlets, in which the petitioners, along with two other bidders, participated in the process.
Even though the petitioner submitted their bid before the final deadline for bid submission, the YIA, after the deadline had passed, issued a corrigendum extending the submission time, citing a ‘technical glitch’ on the e-tendering portal that prevented some bidders from uploading their bids. Later, following the evaluation process, the YIA issued a Letter of Intent to Award (LoIA) to the consortium of other bidders, and the petitioners were informed of their rejection on account of technical and financial scores. Thus, the petitioners challenged the rejection of their bid for the license to set up, operate, and manage duty-free and retail outlets at the Noida International Airport.
Appearances:
Senior Advocates Arvind K Nigam and Arunabh Chowdhury, along with Advocates Abhay Jadeja, Varun Satija, Agnish Aditya, Urvi Gulecha, Aniruddha M Sethi, and Karma Dorjee, for the Petitioners
Senior Advocates Ramji Srinivasan and A. Dave, along with Advocates Anjana Gosain, Akansha Choudhary, Shreya Manjari, Amar Gupta, Mohit Sharma, Pranav Tanwar, Milanka Chaudhury, Ashly Cherian, Shivankar Sukul, Arjun Bhatia, Shefali, Saman Ahsan, Srijita Majumdar, and Yashwant Gaggar, for the Respondents
