- 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
Delhi High Court Issues Contempt Of Court Notice To Resolution Professional of Go First Airlines
Delhi High Court Issues Contempt Of Court Notice To Resolution Professional of Go First Airlines
The matter will be heard on 15 March
The Delhi High Court has issued a contempt of court notice to the insolvency resolution professional (RP) of Go First Airlines on the petitions filed by several aircraft lessors for violating the court’s orders.
In the DAE (SY 22) 13 Ireland Designated Activity Company v Go Airlines (India) Ltd case, the bench comprising Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the aircraft lent to the airlines were not being maintained properly. The judge found the RP prima facie guilty of disobeying the court’s directions for the maintenance of the aircraft.
The court held, “The respondent/RP is unable to undertake regular maintenance of the aircraft. The directions: (a) to provide access and inspection of all aircraft records and documents (b) monthly inspection of aircrafts from August/September 2023 onwards (c) to carry out the maintenance and obligation of the aircraft in accordance with the specified guidelines, are not being adhered to by him. This shows that the court orders are not being complied with.”
While appearing on behalf of the RP, the counsel submitted that they were willing to provide the lessors access to the aircraft for maintenance on their own.
At this concession by the RP’s counsel, the lessors’ counsel sought time to come up with instructions. The lessors had contended that they were not provided with documents for the spare parts removed or the storage of the aircraft, maintenance history and updated technical records.
The RP denied any willful disobedience of the judgments and orders. He stated that steps were taken to effectuate compliance with the directions of the court. He added that if there was non-compliance, it was due to circumstances beyond his control.
However, the court rejected the RP’s contention that the aircraft could not be taken care of properly because of the reduced workforce on account of non-payment of salaries since April 2023.
Thus, while issuing a contempt notice, the bench stated, “Quite clearly when making the submissions on 12 July 2023, the RP was aware of his reduced workforce on account of non-payment of salaries since April 2023. For him to contend otherwise, has led to cannibalization or deterioration of the aircraft on account of no proper maintenance in accordance with the guidelines.”
Senior advocates Kevic Setalvad and Jayant Mehta, along with advocates Nimish Vakil, Pai Amit, Abhiyudaya Vats, Anshul Syal, Bhavana Duhoon, Nitin Sarin, Mukul Katyal, Priyam Jinger, Chiranjivi Sharma and Ameya Gokhale appeared for the aircraft lessors.
Advocates Diwakar Maheshwari, Shreyas E, Pratibha Agarwal and Pratiksha Mishra represented the RP of Go First Airline.