Delhi HC Issues Contempt Notice Against GO Air Resolution Professional For Being Unable To Comply Its Directive On Regular Maintenance Of Aircrafts

The dispute arose in the matter when through a judgment delivered on October 12, 2023, the court directed the Resolution Professional (RP) to ensure the regular maintenance and preservation of 54 aircraft, which were the subject of pending writ petitions. However, the Contempt Petitioner alleged that the RP had wilfully neglected this obligation by failing to carry out regular maintenance, provide monthly inspections, and furnish necessary aircraft records and documents.

A Bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju thus held that it was is clear that the Respondent/RP is unable to undertake regular maintenance of the Aircrafts, after examining the Affidavits filed by the Contempt Petitioner as well as the detailed Affidavits filed by the Respondent/RP.

“The directions; (a) to provide access and the inspection of all the Aircrafts records and documents; (b) monthly inspection of the Aircrafts from August/September, 2023 onwards; and, (c) carrying out the maintenance and obligation with respect to the Aircrafts in accordance with the guidelines as specified are not being adhered to by the Respondent/RP. Thus, clearly, the Court Orders are not being complied with, by the Respondent/RP…Prima facie, the orders of this Court have been wilfully disobeyed by the Respondent/RP. Issue Notice to show cause as to why proceedings of contempt be not initiated against the Respondent/RP”, the Bench observed.

The Bench further observed that the Respondent/RP cannot plead difficulties on implementation of on the Judgment after contempt proceedings have been filed by a party seeking to enforce obedience of the orders passed by the Court from time to time.

Senior Advocate Kevic Setalvad appeared for the petitioners and Advocate Diwakar Maheshwari appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the Respondent/RP had essentially argued that there was no wilful disobedience of the judgments and orders of the Court, and that he has been taking all the steps to effectuate such compliance. However, due to circumstances outside the control of the Respondent/RP, the compliance of the Orders passed by the Court and the Division Bench of the Court could not be done.

Citing the earlier judgment, the Contempt Petitioner had contended that the Respondent/RP wilfully failed to: (a) Undertake regular maintenance of the Aircrafts; and (b) Provide the monthly inspection of the Aircrafts; and (c) Provide the Aircraft Records and documents.

Further argued that the RP's actions constituted a breach of court orders. Furthermore, they contended that the RP's failure to adhere to the directives jeopardized the integrity and value of the aircraft, which could have serious implications for the ongoing legal proceedings.

In response, the RP filed multiple affidavits detailing the challenges faced in complying with the court's directives. They highlighted financial constraints leading to the non-payment of salaries to technical personnel responsible for maintenance tasks. The RP also cited a significant reduction in the workforce due to resignations and non-reporting of employees.

However, the matter has been adjourned till March 15, 2024 on the counsels for the Contempt Petitioner as well as other Petitioners/Lessors’ request for an accommodation to take instructions to see if it is possible to work out the modalities of the concession given.

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Kevic Setalvad, with Advocates Nimish Vakil, Pai Amit, Abhiyudaya Vats, Anshul Syal, and Bhavana Duhoon, Nitin Sarin, Mukul Katyal and Priyam Jinger, Advocates, Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta with Advocate Ameya Gokhale Advocate Chiranjivi Sharma

Respondent: Advocates Diwakar Maheshwari, Shreyas E., Pratibha Agarwal, Pratiksha Mishra for Resolution Professional

Cause Title: DAE (SY 22) 13 Ireland Designated Activity Company v. Go Airlines (India) Ltd.