12 SCC 449 and M/s. Hochtief Gammon Vs. State of Orissa and others , AIR 1975 SC 2226 . In paragraph 10, paragraphs 53 and 71 of the decision of the Delhi International Airport ( supra ) were extracted. In that case, the Apex Court held that in view of clause 5.1 of OMDA, the rights and obligations associated with the operation and management of the airport would stand transferred. It was further held that the obligations, which were cast upon the A.A.I. would be required to be fulfilled by its lessee (M.I.A.L.). It is not in dispute that clause 5.1 of the agreement between A.A.I. and M.I.A.L. is identical. The Division Bench also referred to the decision of Hochtief Gammon Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and others , AIR 1964 SC 1746 , and extracted paragraph 7 thereof. Paragraph 13 of that decision was reproduced. In paragraph 18, the Division Bench observed that the present proceedings are arising out of an application before the Central Government for amendment of the reference. As such, the present case would be governed by the second judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Hochtief Gammon Vs. State of Orissa and others , AIR 1975 SC 2226 and not the first one i.e. Hochtief Gammon Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and others , AIR 1964 SC 1746 . In paragraph 19, it was observed that if the respondent No.3 (M.I.A.L.) is made a party and the amendment as sought is made, it would not expand the scope of the dispute. The only additional question that would be decided is if in the event the petitioners are successful in justifying their claim against respondent No.2-A.A.I., whether respondent No.3M.I.A.L. who steps into the shoes of the respondent No.2 would be liable to perform obligations of the respondent No.2 from 03.05.2006 or not. Aggrieved by this decision, M.I.A.L. preferred S.L.P. before the Apex Court which was dismissed on 03.07.2015.
