The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has formally intervened in the escalating financial dispute between the liquidator of Jet Airways and the global aircraft manufacturer Boeing . A bench led by Judicial Member Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha issued a notice to the US-based manufacturer following an appeal against a September 2026 ruling from the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal . At the center of this legal challenge is a demand for the recovery of $92.12 million in advance and pre-delivery payments that the grounded airline made for aircraft that were ultimately never supplied.

The dispute stems from procurement agreements signed in 2013 , when Jet Airways committed to expanding its fleet by ordering Boeing 737-8 and Boeing 787-9 aircraft. As financial pressure mounted on the airline throughout the following years, the ability to meet further payment obligations waned, leading to the eventual suspension and termination of the contracts by Boeing in 2019 and 2020 . With the airline now undergoing liquidation, the recovery of these substantial advance payments has become a pivotal issue for the insolvency estate , which aims to maximize returns for creditors.

The Conflict Over Contractual Forfeiture

The liquidator, Satish Kumar Gupta , contends that the $92.12 million paid to Boeing forms a critical component of the liquidation estate . The legal argument asserts that Boeing has failed to provide a robust contractual or statutory basis to justify the retention of these funds, particularly given that the primary purpose of the agreements—the delivery of aircraft—was never fulfilled. The liquidator argues that these funds remain the property of the airline and should be returned to satisfy the claims of various creditors under the ongoing insolvency process.

In its defense, Boeing has maintained a position rooted in the operational specifics of the insolvency proceedings. The company argues that the advance payments were legally adjusted against its broader outstanding claims against the airline. According to Boeing , these figures were already factored into its claim admitted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process , which ballooned from an initial figure of approximately $275.33 million to nearly ₹873.79 crore due to currency fluctuations. Boeing maintains that permitting the liquidator to claw back these funds now would effectively amount to a double recovery, as the amounts have already been credited against the airline’s established liabilities.

Judicial Hurdles in Summary Jurisdiction

The initial rejection of the refund application by the National Company Law Tribunal hinged on the limitations of its own jurisdiction. During the proceedings, the tribunal noted that the crux of the matter required a deep dive into the specific terms of the 2013 purchase agreements—documents that neither party had placed on the record, citing confidentiality concerns. Without a comprehensive examination of these contractual obligations, the tribunal found it impossible to determine if Boeing ’s actions—suspending performance, terminating the contracts, and forfeiting the advances—were legally justified.

The tribunal observed that the dispute was effectively an independent contractual disagreement that fell outside the scope of its summary powers under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code . As the bench noted during the dismissal of the liquidator's application: “The tribunal held that determining whether Boeing was justified in suspending or terminating the agreements, forfeiting or adjusting the advance payments, or filing its claim during the insolvency proceedings would require examination of the contractual terms and evidence through a full-fledged trial.” By declining to adjudicate, the tribunal effectively signaled that such complex disputes regarding the set-off of mutual dues and contractual performance might necessitate the intervention of a competent court with broader plenary powers to hear evidence and interpret commercial agreements.

Implications for Aviation Insolvency

The appellate proceedings now underway bring renewed focus to how insolvency regimes handle long-term aviation contracts where significant capital is committed years in advance. The outcome of this case could establish important precedents regarding the extent to which liquidators can contest the forfeiture of pre-delivery payments, especially when those funds were previously accounted for as liabilities during the insolvency process. For legal professionals, the case serves as a reminder of the tensions between summary insolvency proceedings and traditional civil litigation in matters involving international commercial contracts and complex set-off provisions.

Boeing ’s legal counsel has accepted the notice from the appellate tribunal and has been granted a two-week window to file a formal reply. Following this, the liquidator will have one week to submit a rejoinder. While the liquidator’s team has opted not to press for interim relief at this stage, the resolution of this appeal will be significant in determining the final value of the assets available for distribution.

The case remains under active consideration by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal , with the next hearing scheduled for the first week of December . Until then, both parties must navigate the procedural requirements of the appellate stage, as the tribunal prepares to determine whether the dismissal by the lower tribunal sufficiently addressed the liquidator’s claims or whether a deeper judicial investigation into the underlying purchase agreements is required. The pending decision will likely dictate the next steps for both the liquidator in his pursuit of assets and for Boeing as it defends the legitimacy of its financial set-offs made during the turbulent final years of the airline’s operation.