The central legal point established in the judgment is that flying Aircrafts without permission, especially after the termination of lease agreements and the process of deregistration, is contrary to the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Rules framed thereunder.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: [Oral]

CM APPL. 38321/2023 [Application for urgent directions to Respondent Nos. 2 & 9 to comply with the order dated 05.07.2023]

1. This is an application filed by the Petitioners seeking urgent directions from the Court.

2. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Counsel who appears on behalf of the Petitioners has made the following submissions:

(i) In disregard of the order and directions passed by the Court, Respondent No.9/RP of Go Airlines has on 25.07.2023 and on 28.07.2023 flown 2 Aircraft owned by the Petitioners without the permission of this Court. It is contended that this Court by its judgment dated 05.07.2023 [hereinafter referred to as "05.07.2023 judgment"] had passed a detailed interim order granting reliefs to the Petitioners. Further, in paragraph 11 of the 05.07.2023 judgment, this Court has passed directions that once the process of the deregistration has begun, the Aircrafts cannot be flown as below:

"11. The provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules inter-alia provide that no person shall use and operate an Aircraft unless it is in accordance with the Aircraft Rules.

11.1 Rule 5 of the Aircraft Rules provides for the registration etc. of an Aircraft and states that unless an Aircraft has been registered and it bears its nationality and registration marks on the Aircraft, it shall not be flown.

11.2 The registration and marking of an Aircraft is provided for in Rule 30 of the Aircraft Rules. The relevant extract reads as follows:

"30. Certificate of Registration -

(1) ...

(2). An aircraft may be registered in India in either of the following categories, namely:-

Category A--Where the aircraft is wholly owned either--

(i). ...

(iv). by a company or corporation registered elsewhere than in India:

Provided that such company or corporation has given the said aircraft on lease to any person mentioned in sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii); and]....

11.3 Rule 30(6)(iv) of the Aircraft Rules provides as follows:

(6) The registration of an aircraft registered in India may be cancelled at any time by the Central Government, if it is satisfied that -

(i) ....

(iv) the lease in respect of the aircraft, registered in pursuance of sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-rule (2) [has expired or has been terminated in accordance with terms of lease or];"

11.4 Thus, once an event of default has occurred and the Petitioners` have terminated the Lease Agreement(s) and commenced the process of de-registration of the Aircraft, such Aircraft cannot be flown."

[Emphasis supplied]

(ii) An Appeal against the 05.07.2023 judgment was filed by Respondent No.9/RP of Go Airlines before the Division Bench of this Court being LPA No.537/2023. The specific directions qua paragraph 11.4 of the 05.07.2023 judgment form part of the challenge in the Appeal(s). However, it is submitted that the Division Bench declined to interfere with these directions except for a minor modification to paragraph 20.1(ii) of the 05.07.2023 judgment. Reliance is placed on the followings paragraphs of the Division Bench order dated 12.07.2023 [hereinafter referred to as "DB order"] which is reproduced below:

"14. The impugned interim directives primarily pertain to the inspection and maintenance of the aircrafts, which are designed to prevent cannibalisation and preserve their value and integrity. In our opinion, no severe prejudice would be inflicted upon GoAir in the event the matter is relegated to the learned Single Judge for final disposal of the writ petitions, especially in light of the fact that DGCA would require a minimum of fifteen days to decide on re-commencement of GoAir`s flights. We thus deem it appropriate in the interest of justice to refrain from entertaining the appeals at this juncture. The learned Single Judge is however requested to endeavour to decide the writ petitions as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the next scheduled date of hearing.

.