The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) temporarily enjoined the Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) from removing Jet Airways' assets from its premises and directed it to allow the airline's representatives, workmen, and nominees access to the airport premises. [State Bank of India vs Jet Airways]
A bench of judicial member Justice (retired) PN Deshmukh and technical member KK Vohra found that denying the airline access to the Mumbai Airport premises would make it difficult for it to maintain aircraft, engines, and auxiliary power units.
The NCLT agreed with the applicant-airline that such maintenance actions are required to prevent asset deterioration and to ensure the successful implementation of the applicant's resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
“Even otherwise, it is to be noted that one of the principal objectives of the Code is to provide for revival of the CD (Corporate Debtor) and every attempt ought to be made to revive the CD and Liquidation being the last resort.
In view of the above and as it is also the case of the Applicant that despite cessation of Airline operations of the CD, the erstwhile Resolution Professional had, with the approval of the Committee of Creditors, retained a team of personnel to look for the maintenance of aircrafts and engines placed at MIAL Airport including Hangar," the Court observed, before holding that the applicant had made out a case in its favour.
Following MIAL's request to quit the airport grounds on June 3, 2019, the defunct airline firm filed a petition with the tribunal. The respondents argued that the applicant's authority to use the airline's facilities had been cancelled when the airline's activities stopped on April 17, 2019.
They noted that the request to vacate the premises was issued before the firm was placed into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
The airline, represented by counsel Rohan Rajadhyaksha, requested that the respondent issue instructions allowing the airline's representatives, employees, nominees, and others unrestricted access to the airport grounds for the purpose of maintaining assets housed there.
It was suggested that these assets must be preserved in order for the Resolution Plan to be implemented successfully.
MIAL was represented by Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani, who contested the application, claiming that the request to vacate the buildings and hangars was made properly because the applicant-airline had discontinued commercial operations.