Bombay High Court Reserves Judgment on Jurisdiction Issue in Akasa Air Suit Against Five Pilots
Bombay High Court Reserves Judgment on Jurisdiction Issue in Akasa Air Suit Against Five Pilots
The decision is likely to be pronounced on 27 September
The Bombay High Court has reserved its order on the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to hear the suit filed by Akasa Air against five pilots who recently resigned from the company without serving the mandatory notice period.
Since the pilots do not reside in Mumbai, they objected to the suit being conducted in the city.
A single-judge bench of Justice SM Modak is likely to pronounce his decision on this aspect on September 27.
The low-cost airline company had filed a suit seeking compensation of Rs.21 crores each from the five pilots. In its plea, the airline stated that the pilots had abruptly exited the company without serving the mandatory six-month notice period.
It sought an order directing the pilots to pay Rs.18 lakh for breach of contract and Rs.21 crore each for damages to the airline’s reputation due to flight cancellations, rescheduling, and grounding. Additionally, it prayed for an interim direction for the pilots to serve out their notice period.
Meanwhile, the pilots claimed that the cause for the dispute between the parties arose outside Mumbai. Hence, the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
They claimed that it was mandatory for the company to first obtain the court’s leave under clause XII of the Original Side Rules of the High Court to continue with its suit in Mumbai before seeking any other relief.
Appearing for Akasa Air, Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas argued that the cause of action leading to the dispute was the resignation of the pilots. The resignations were invalid as they did not comply with the agreement clause requirements and accepting those was at the company’s discretion.
He added that the place of execution of the agreement with the pilots was under debate since Akasa claimed it was in Mumbai while the pilots said it was outside the city. He requested the court to grant leave to proceed with the suit and decide on the jurisdiction, based on the pleadings filed in the suit.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, representing one of the pilots, argued that the acceptance of resignation was not required at all as the pilots were not restrained from resigning.
He stated that if it were assumed that the place of receiving relevant emails, including the acceptance of the resignation by the company decided the jurisdiction for dispute, then it was not Mumbai.
Khambata added that if the leave petition was to be decided ex-parte (without hearing the other side), then the averments in the plaint could be considered. But the pilots had been issued a notice.
Briefed by Rashmikant and Partners, Darius Khambatta represented three pilots along with Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina and Advocates Rohan Dakshini, Shweta Jaydev, Janaki Garde, Chandrajit Das, Feroza Bharucha, and Arya Gadagkar.
Advocates Amit Mishra, Mitakshara Goyal, Shivam Singhania, and Nazish Alam from Svarniti Law Offices appeared for two pilots.
