Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
M/s. Paramount Airways Private Limited
Versus
The Airports Authority of India, rep. by its General Manager (F&A) & Others
W.P.No.7461 of 2010 & 1 of 2010
Decided On : 16-03-2010
Mandamus - Possession of Aircrafts - - [Aircraft Act, 1934, Section 5(1)(a), Aircraft Rules, 1937, Rule 30(2)] - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent interference with the petitioner's possession of the Aircrafts. The court found that the petitioner engaged in 'forum shopping' and that the matter was already pending before the Supreme Court, making the petition not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent interference with their possession of certain Aircrafts. The petitioner had entered into lease agreements for the Aircrafts but faced default notices and termination of the lease. The matter was litigated in various courts, including the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner engaged in 'forum shopping' and that the matter was already pending before the Supreme Court, making the petition not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should issue a mandamus to prevent interference with the petitioner's possession of the Aircrafts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's conduct amounted to 'forum shopping' and that the matter was already pending before the Supreme Court, rendering the petition not maintainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, their men and agents not to interfere with the petitioners possession of the Aircrafts bearing Nos.MSN 17000126 VT-PAD, MSN 17000137 VT-PAE and MSN 17000147 VT-PAF.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 27. 2005 the petitioner entered into three Aircraft Specific Lease Agreements with Celestial Aviation Trading 71 Limited, under which the three Aircrafts below mentioned were leased out in favour of the petitioner:
.(a) MSN 17000126 VT-PAD,
.(b) MSN 17000137 VT-PAE and
.(c) MSN 17000147 VT-PAF.
On 9. 2009 and 19. 2009, urgent default notices were issued by the Lessor on the ground that the petitioner had defaulted in paying the agreed rent. On 110. 2009, the Lessor issued a notice of termination and called upon the petitioner to stop using the Aircrafts and hand over possession of the Aircrafts. On 110. 2009, the Lessor Company filed a claim petitioner before the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench, London, and prayed for a declaration that the termination of the lease agreement is valid and for a direction that the petitioner should hand over possession of the Aircrafts. On 111. 2009, the Director General of the Civil Aviation issued notice to de-register the leased Aircrafts and directed the petitioner to give its comments, for which the petitioner sent a reply followed with another notice dated 30.11.2009. The petitioner approached this Court at notice stage by filing W.P.No.21080 of 2009 and the same having been dismissed by this Court, petitioner filed W.A.No.1704 of 2009 before the Division Bench of this Court and the writ appeal was disposed of by this Court on 211. 2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all its objections before the authorities concerned. On 12. 2009 the Director General of Civil Aviation passed an order cancelling the registration of the Aircrafts with immediate effect. On 12. 2009, the said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)No.13678 of 2009 and obtained interim stay of the operation of the order dated 12. 2009. The Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court also passed an order against the petitioner, which was challenged before the Appellate Court, and the Appellate Court granted stay on 12. 2010 with certain conditions, to be complied with by 3. 2010. The conditional order having not been complied with, the appeal was dismissed on 13. 2010.
3. Thewrit petition filed before the Delhi High Court was dismissed on 13. 2010 based on the order passed by the Appellate Court, London, dated 13. 2010. The petitioner again filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.5283 of 2010 and prayed for issuing a mandamus directing the respondents from taking any action against the said three Aircrafts. The said writ petition was dismissed by me by order dated 13. 2010 holding that the remedy open to the petitioner was to urge all the points before the Delhi High Court either by filing appeal or review. Not satisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed W.A.No.546 of 2010 before the Division Bench of this Court and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 4. 2010.
4. The petitioner also filed LPA.No.198 of 2010 before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and challenged the order of the learned single Judge dated 13. 2010. The said appeal was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 23. 2010 against which the petitioner filed SLP(C)No.9519 of 2010 before the Honourable Supreme Court. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before the Director General of Civil Aviation and requested to give post decisional hearing. On 23. 2010 the Director General of Civil Aviation passed an order and sustained his earlier order dated 12. 2009. The said decision of the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 23. 2010 is challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on 30.3.2010 in W.P.(C)N
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
