$~SB-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 16.01.2024 + FAO(OS) 125/2023 AIR INDIA LIMITED ..... Appellant versus ALL INDIA AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION & ANR.

.... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate (Through V.C.) with Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Mr. Lynn Pereria, Ms. Priyanka M.P. , Ms. Shivangi Suid, Ms. Srishti Prakash and Mr. Arkaprava Dass,Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Sameer Kumar, Ms. Somi Sharma, Mr. Shah Rukh Ahmad and Mr. Mandeep Baisala, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

(The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid Mode)

CM APPL. 1172/2024 (Exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 1171/2024 (Modification of order dated 30.11.2023

3. This is an application on behalf of the Appellant under Section Signature Not VerifiedFAO(OS) 125/2023 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”), for modification of the Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by this Court, on the ground that instead of granting an unconditional stay as prayed for, this Court had restrained the execution of the Arbitral Award dated 25.05.2016, subject to the condition of deposit of the entire decreetal amount, along with interest accrued till date, within a period of six weeks, failing which Respondent No. l would be entitled to execute the Award.

4. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant, has submitted that the Applicant/Appellant has a prima facie strong case in its favour, and is therefore urging that the Order dated 30.11.2023 be modified to grant of unconditional stay. Learned Senior Counsel has reiterated the arguments submitted on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant urged on 30.11.2023.

5. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant, invites attention of this Court to relevant paras of the Order dated 09.05.2013 of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 16397/2013, to submit that even if one were to go by the undertaking given before the Supreme Court, the interests and security of the Respondent No.1 and its members have sufficiently been taken care of and as such, the said direction of conditional stay may not be appropriate in these circumstances. Mr. Salve submitted that in any case the Respondent No.1 would be bound by the terms of Memorandum of Settlement in question, which was relied upon by the Respondent No.1 itself in its Writ Petition as also the SLP (C) No. 16397/2013.

Signature Not VerifiedFAO(OS) 125/2023 Page 2 of 6 Digitally Signed

6. Apart from this, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant, submits that the Applicant/Appellant is a going concern and a running corporation, and direction of such nature in clearing the dues to Respondent No. 1/employees would seriously jeopardize the Corporation, in the sense that, the same would put the Applicant/Appellant in more financial distress as the amount is required to run the Airlines. In that view, learned Senior Counsel puts forth that such direction of payment of an amount of more than Rs.100 Crores to the Respondent No.1, is onerous upon the Applicant/Appellant.

7. Mr. Salve, learned Senior Counsel submits such deposit would neither benefit any person nor would it be prudent to take the money out from the business of the Applicant/Appellant and put the same in banks. So far as securing the interests of the members of Respondent No.1 are concerned, learned Senior Counsel very fairly submits, as an alternative, that the Applicant/Appellant would be willing to furnish a bank guarantee for the amount so directed to be deposited vide Order dated

30.11.2023.

8. Per Contra, Mr. Jay Savla, learned Senior Counsel vehemently and seriously disputes the maintainability of the present ap