MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD. versus M/S. GOLDEN CHARIOT AIRPORT AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 22-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2010] 12 S.C.R. 326 
MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD. 
v. 
MIS. GOLDEN CHARIOT AIRPORT AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8201 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Approbate and Reprobate: Shifting of stands - Licence 
granted to run a restaurant for limited period - Notice issued 
C for vacating the licenced premises after expiry of licenced 
period - Suit for declaration and injunction by licencee on the 
ground that the licence was irrevocable - Civil court returned 
the plaint holding that it did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to 
hear the case - In appeal, licencee dropped the prayer that 
D licence was irrevocable - Suit revived and decreed on the 
ground that terms of licence provided for applicability of the 
provisions of Public Premises Act, 1971 - Proceedings before 
Estate Officer - Estate Officer directing licencee to vacate the 
premises - Licencee's plea before Supreme Court that the 
E licence was irrevocable - Held: A litigant cannot change and 
choose its stand to suit his convenience and prolong a civil 
litigation on prevaricated pleas - The common law doctrine 
prohibiting approbation and reprobation is a facet of the law 
of estoppel - The licencee took a stand before High Court that 
F the licence was revocable and got the benefit as a result of 
taking such stand in as much as it got the suit revived and 
tried and got the benefit of an interim order in the said 
proceedings - As a result of the said stand, the suit went on 
before the civil court from 2001 to 2004 and in view of the 
G interim protection, licencee ran the restaurant during that 
period - The licencee on a complete volte-face of its previous 
stand cannot urge its case of irrevocable licence before the 
Estate Officer and before the Supreme Court -
Even 
otherwise, the licence by its very term was revocable - Since 
H 
326 
MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD. v. GOLDEN 327 
CHARIOT AIRPORT 
licencee took inconsistent stands, and thereby prolonged A 
litigation for more than a decade and did not pursue its 
proceedings honestly in different fora, therefore, its appeal is 
dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5, 00, 0001- - Doctrine of 
estoppe/ - Leave and licence - Plea - Costs. 
Leave and licence: Licence - Revocable licence - Held: 
8 
Whether a contractual licence is revocable or not, depends 
on the express terms of the contract - A contractual licence 
is normally revocable, except in certain circumstances that 
are expressly provided for in Easement Act, 1882 - On facts, 
plea of licencee that it invested money in construction of C 
restaurant on the oral assurance by the officers of Airport 
Authority (AA/) about extension of licence so as to make it 
irrevocable was of no legal consequence -
No such 
assurance was proved, even if it is proved, such assurance 
did not and would not bind the AA/ - Being a statutory D 
corporation, AA/ was totally bound by the Act and the 
Regulations framed under the Act - Plea of discrimination on 
the ground that cases of other licencees were extended 
whereas in the case of licencee, the licence was not extended, 
not factually correct as its licence was also extended twice -
E 
Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 - Airports Authority of 
India (Amendment) Act, 2003 - Airports Authority of India 
(Contract) Regulations 2003 - Regulation 3(2) - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Easement Act, 1882 - s.52. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 -
Plea of 
discrimination - Held: Can only be raised if a person has a 
right in law, to be treated in a particular way, but that treatment 
is denied to him, whereas others are given the same 
treatment. 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised 
Occupants) Act, 1971: s.3 - Power of Central Government 
to appoint Estate Officer u!s.3 - Notification dated 1. 7.1997 
published in the Official Gazette by Central Government for 
F 
G 
H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A appointment of several persons as Estate Officers for the 
purpose of the 1971 Act - By a further notification dated 
15.5.07, published in the Official Gazette, previous notification 
amended and for the words 'Airport Director', the words 
'Deputy General Manager (Land Management)' substituted 
8 - Estate Officer who decided the case of the licencee was 
promoted and brought to Mumbai as Deputy General 
Manager (Land Management) - Therefore, by virtue of his 
designation 
as Deputy General Manager (Land 
Ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.