Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 25378
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.Y. KOGJE, SAMIR J. DAVE, JJ
AXIA AVIATION LTD – Appellant
Versus
VELS AVIATION SERVICES IFSC PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 103 of 2023 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 109 of 2022
MR.S.N.SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR DARSHANKUMAR R KABRA(11246), MR.R.S.SANJAWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR BHARGAV HASURKAR(5640), MR MANISH M KAUSHIK(5048)
Compliance with court orders is essential; absence of willful disobedience negates contempt.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984 - Rule 13(a) - Appeal from Order - Non-compliance with court directions regarding aircraft maintenance - The respondents failed to file the required maintenance report as directed by the court, raising concerns about the authenticity of the submitted documents. The court found that the respondents had complied with the directions over time, and the contempt application was dismissed. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 20)
(B) Compliance with Court Orders - The court emphasized that compliance with its orders is paramount, and the absence of willful disobedience negates contempt. (Paras 5, 20)
Facts of the case:
The applicant filed for contempt against the respondents for not complying with court orders regarding the maintenance of an aircraft sold under a purchase agreement. The court had directed the respondents to submit maintenance reports periodically.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents had complied with the maintenance reporting requirements and dismissed the contempt application.
Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents had complied with the court's maintenance reporting requirements and the implications of their non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents had complied with the court's directions and that the absence of willful disobedience did not warrant contempt proceedings.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contempt application filed (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondents' defense on compliance (Para 5) |
| 3. court's consideration of compliance (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court's ruling on compliance (Para 20) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed praying for action against the respondents for committing contempt as the respondents have failed to comply with the directions of this Court issued vide order dated 28.06.2022, 28.07.2022 and order dated 07.09.2022 passed in Civil Application No.1 of 2022 in Appeal from Order No.109 of 2022 and in Appeal from Order No.109 of 2022.
2. The Appeal from Order was filed by the applicant herein challenging the common order dated 07.05.2022 below Exh.5, 19 and 37 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Commercial Civil Suit No.04 of 2022. The suit was based on sale and purchase agreement dated 19.08.2021 between the applicant and respondent No.1, under which, an Aircraft identified as the Gulf Stream Model G200 transacted in favour of the respondents for total consideration of 2.5 million USD was made.
2.1 By order dated 28.06.2022, the Appeal from Order came to be admitted however, on the same day, in the Civil Application for stay the Court had passed certain directions. The conditions thus imposed and to which the present proceeding is concerned, is a direction of the Court to respondent No.1 to file a report from a maintaining agency to the effect that the aircraft was periodically maintained till the next date.
3. Learned senior advocate Mr. S.N.Soparkar for the applicant has argued that the directions contained in the Civil Application in order dated 28.06.2022 specifically provided for filing of the report and that too by a agency which is specifically named in such direction the report is to be filed periodically and regularly till the next date.
4. It is submitted that on the next date i.e. 28.07.2022, further order was passed in the Civil Application, wherein certain modifications in the Order were permitted however, the directions which were given in order dated 28.06.2022 were continued to operate. Thereafter, even in order dated 07.09.2022, specific directions were given to dispose of the suit expeditiously and during the pendency of the suit, conditions which were imposed in the order dated 28.06.2022 read with order dated 28.07.2022 regarding maintenance of the aircraft would continue.
4.1 According to learned senior advocate, the respondents have flouted these very directions when they failed to produce the report for maintenance as per the directions.
4.2 It is also submitted that even if the report which is thereafter place on record is taken into consideration, such report cannot be treated as fulfilling the requirement of the directions. It is submitted that the report which the respondents claimed to be the report of maintenance is merely a certificate with no particular details with regard to maintenance.
4.3 Another argument is advanced by drawing attention to various documents placed on record that the chosen maintenance agency Indamer Aviation Private Limited did not in fact have any authority/permission to carry out maintenance of the particular aircraft namely Gulf Stream Model G200, especially in Chennai as the certificate of maintenance is issued as if the maintenance of the aircraft was done in Chennai. It is submitted that the authority to maintain this particular aircraft, was no doubt with Indamer Aviation Private Limited, but the same facility was only at Bangalore Airport and therefore, there is a serious doubt with regard to the report placed by the respondents, where it can be considered as a genuine report of maintenance.
4.4 Learned senior advocate has submitted that over and above, non-submission of the report as directed under order of this Court, the Court take cognizance of the conduct of the respondents as the respondents have not remained present be
