- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
S&A Law Offices Successfully Represented Shrishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Against Airport Authority Of India
S&A Law Offices Successfully Represented Shrishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Against Airport Authority of India
S&A Law Offices acted for Shrishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (IDCL) wherein SIDCL had challenged the order passed by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) rejecting the grant of permissible height for SIDCL’s building structure under Section 9A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 read with Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restriction for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015.
SIDCL argued that the height restriction was based on a "crude method"without proper mathematical or computer modelling and that the decision lacked valid reasons. Additionally, it contended that the permissible height should consider the tilt angle of the radar and that the site should be assessed under multi-radar criteria due to the presence of more than one radar at Kolkata Airport.
AAI countered that the height restriction was scientifically calculated using the NOCAS system and that the multi-radar criteria did not apply as Kolkata Airport only had one ASR radar.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in its judgement dated 15 October 2024, quashed the Order passed by the AAI, citing that the said order was cryptic, passed without assigning any reason and was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The S&A Law Offices team led by Vijay K Singh (Senior Partner), assisted by Shashwat Singh Sawno (Principal Associate) and Ankur Mishra (Sr. Principal Associate) represented Shrishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.