- 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
Kerala High Court Denied Order Modification for Suspension of Airline’s Ticket Booking Portals
Kerala High Court Denied Order Modification for Suspension of Airline’s Ticket Booking Portals
The Kerala High Court has refused to modify its earlier order dated 5th May, 2023 wherein it had directed the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to check the factual aspects averred by a lawyer in a petition seeking suspension of ticket booking portals and to further stop their agents from accepting any flight bookings.
Further, the Court had directed the DGCA that if the same were found to be correct, the Airlines would have to be directed to suspend its ticket booking portals and to further stop their agents from taking any flight bookings.
The present application was filed by the Airline company-GO Airlines (India) Ltd., seeking to modify the previous dated order.
A plea was moved by a lawyer seeking the suspension of ticket booking portals of Go First Airlines and subsequently, an interlocutory application was filed by the Airline company to modify the aforementioned previous order of the Court.
On perusing the same, the single judge Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan found that no such modification was necessary and held, “The petitioner is free to approach the 2nd respondent (DGCA) and convince him about their stand, and if such request is received from the petitioner, the 2nd respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the 1st respondent (Union of India) and pass appropriate orders in it, in accordance with law.”
The Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy appearing for the petitioner averred that he had booked Go First Airline tickets for himself and his family and friends through the travel portals of ‘ClearTrip’ and ‘EasemyTrip’.
The petitioner claimed that it was only thereafter that he came to know from news reports that the Airline Company had filed an application for voluntary insolvency before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Delhi, and announced cancellation of all flights between 3 May – 5 May, 2023.
The petitioner argued that an application for voluntary insolvency requires the Approval of Shareholders and the Board of Directors, which in turn, indicated that despite the Company as well its Directors being aware of the intention of the Airlines to suspend its operations, allowed the ticket booking services on various platforms.
It was the duty of the airline regulator, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), to conduct regular financial audits, and that it failed to do so, stated the petitioner.
The plea reads as follows: “The Airline Companies are allowed to take bookings for up to a year in advance and because of the DGCA not performing its duties, several passengers lost their hard-earned money, and will end up spending more on booking other flights. The lessors of aircrafts have started acquiring the aircraft’s of GO First and there is impossibility of any further operations and yet the DGCA has allowed the Airlines to keep its booking portals open, and many passengers continue to fall prey to daylight robbery.”
It was pleaded by the petitioner that even if refund of the tickets was made, it would still cause loss to the people who would have to spend more money to book their flights as the costs steadily rise.
Thus, the petitioner moved before the Court to sought for a direction to the DGCA to suspend the ticket booking portal of the Airlines, and to stop their agents from taking any flight tickets. The petitioner further sought a direction to be issued to the DGCA to produce the audit report of any financial audit they had conducted on the Airline Company in the calendar years 2021 and 2022.
On 5 May, 2023, the matter was first taken up by the Single Judge Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. who had directed the DGCA to check the factual aspects averred, and if found to be correct, to forthwith direct the Airlines to suspend its ticket booking portals and to stop their agents from taking any flight bookings.
However, the Court found it unnecessary and accordingly, refused to modify its order.