The Delhi High Court has allowed the interim applications moved by the various aircraft lessors of Go First airline, directing that the lessors be permitted by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to "inspect" the aircraft at the airports where they are parked "within the next three days". Observing that the petitioner lessors had made a "strong prima facie case" in view of the provisions of the Aircrafts Rules a single judge bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in its July 5 order noted that the "balance of convenience" was also in the petitioners favour. "The Petitioners are suffering irreparable losses as the value of these Aircrafts are diminishing on a daily basis," the HC said while noting that there can be no denial of the fact that the "Aircrafts of the Petitioners are extremely valuable and highly sophisticated equipment and require regular maintenance for their preservation". With a view to "obviate" any further losses the HC thereafter directed, "Petitioners, their employees, agents, officers.shall be permitted by the Respondent/DGCA and the appropriate Airport Authorities to access the Airport(s) where the 30 Aircrafts are parked.to inspect their respective Aircrafts, within the next 3 days". The court further directed that the petitioners shall be permitted to "carry out inspection and all maintenance tasks of the Aircraft, its engines and other parts and components, of all 30 Aircrafts at least twice every month, until the final disposal of the Writ Petitions". The court also restrained GoAir's directors, IRP/RP's or anyone on its behalf from "removing, replacing, taking out any accessories, parts, components or spares, etc.Manuals /records, documentation from any of the 30 Aircraft, except with prior written approval of the Lessor of such Aircraft". The court however said that these directions are passed in the interim applications and shall not impact the merits of these main writ petitions. The court agreed with the submissions of the lessors that the NCLT "does not have the power of judicial review over administrative action". It further said that 30 aircrafts are "assets‟ owned by the petitioners which were previously under a lease agreement with the "corporate debtor". "Thus, prima facie, the IRP is not required to take control of the same under the provisions of the IBC," the HC observed. "Further.upon termination of the Lease Agreements by the Petitioners, constructive possession of all 30 Aircrafts was taken by the Petitioners on 02, in terms of the provisions of the Lease Agreements. The argument which is raised by the Respondents qua adjudication of the disputes before the NCLT and that this Court under its inherent powers in Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the CIRP process, cannot be sustained. The Petitioners before the Court seek a writ of mandamus against the Respondent/DGCA for breaching its duty as prescribed in the Aircraft Act and are well within their rights to do so," Justice Ganju said. It further noted that the provisions on registration/deregistration of an Aircraft are subject matter of the Aircraft Act and Aircraft Rules and the lessors had approached the HC alleging a "failure" on part of the DGCA to "comply with these provisions and are well within their rights to do so". It also said that the NCLT and the NCLAT are "statutory bodies" constituted under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and have the "powers to adjudicate upon matters which relate to the IBC". In their interim applications the lessors had prayed that the aircrafts be "preserved", contending that if the "mandatory maintenance and preservation tasks" are not regularly carried out, the aircraft will become unworthy of flying and will result in the lessors incurring huge losses.
