M/S A.S.MULTISERVICES TH.ITS PROP SHEIKH MUSHTAQ vs AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA TH.ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS — WP(C)/1025/2026
Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 226. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.
CNR: JKHC010021002026
Next Hearing
08th May 2026
Filing Number
WP(C)/1598/2026
Filing Date
06-05-2026
Registration No
WP(C)/1025/2026
Registration Date
06-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY
Bench Type
SINGLE BENCH
Category
SB OTHER WRIT PETITIONS ( 101 )
Sub-Category
LEASE AND GOVT. CONTRACTS ( 14 )
Judicial Branch
OTHER WRIT PETITION (OWP)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S A.S.MULTISERVICES TH.ITS PROP SHEIKH MUSHTAQ
Respondent(s)
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA TH.ITS CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY
FOR ADMISSION FRESH
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | FOR ADMISSION FRESH |
Orders
Case Summary: WP(C) 1025/2026 M/s A.S. Multiservices challenged the Airport Authority of India's demand for Rs. 60,24,242/- and a Rs. 6.14 lakh penalty imposed on their vehicle parking contract at Srinagar Airport, claiming force majeure protection due to Operation Sindoor disruptions. The High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that the petitioner must first pursue the contractual dispute resolution mechanism (Mediation/Arbitration under Clause 28) rather than writ jurisdiction, while restraining bank guarantee encashment for two weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP(C) 1025/2026 M/s A.S. Multiservices challenged the Airport Authority of India's demand for Rs. 60,24,242/- and a Rs. 6.14 lakh penalty imposed on their vehicle parking contract at Srinagar Airport, claiming force majeure protection due to Operation Sindoor disruptions. The High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that the petitioner must first pursue the contractual dispute resolution mechanism (Mediation/Arbitration under Clause 28) rather than writ jurisdiction, while restraining bank guarantee encashment for two weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts