NCLAT permits Go First lessor to inspect leased aircraft
Disagreeing with a portion of the NCLT’s ruling that restricted the lessor from inspecting the engines, the NCLAT had issued its own directive asking the Resolution Professional (RP) to schedule an inspection within 10 days.
Representative image
NEW DELHI: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Thursday granted permission to Ireland-based lessor Jackson Square Aviation Ltd to inspect its aircraft leased to cash-strapped Go First.
This decision follows a similar observation made in the case of Engine Lease Finance BV – the first lessor to approach the tribunal – on August 18 wherein it had modified the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)’s July 26 order to permit the engine lessor to carry out inspection of four engines of aircraft leased to Go First.
Disagreeing with a portion of the NCLT’s ruling that restricted the lessor from inspecting the engines, the NCLAT had issued its own directive asking the Resolution Professional (RP) to schedule an inspection within 10 days.
Favouring Go First, the NCLT had refused to restrain it from using leased aircraft for its operations as they are essential for the airline to keep going. Challenging the NCLT’s order, Jackson filed the plea against the RP of the airline, Shailendra Ajmera. Earlier this month, the high court had said that scheduled maintenance does not encompass the operation of flights, and it restrained troubled Go First to continue with maintenance flights.
A bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju said that the RP hasn’t shown any sense of urgency or an immediate serious threat to the aircraft that would necessitate the RP to suddenly and unexpectedly operate them without prior notice.
The high court rejected the argument put forth by the RP as “misconceived”, where the RP claimed that Go Airlines had operated two out of the 10 aircraft, stating that these flights were actually part of the scheduled maintenance for an aircraft.
One of the lessors -- SMBC Aviation Capital Ltd -- filed an application submitting that disregarding the earlier directions of the court, the RP has flown two aircraft owned by the petitioners without court’s permission.
