New Delhi, Aug 4
The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that scheduled maintenance does not encompass the operation of flights, as it restrained the troubled Go First airline from continuing with maintenance flights.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, who presided over the case, said that the Resolution Professional (RP) hasn't shown any sense of urgency or an immediate serious threat to the aircraft that would necessitate their being suddenly and unexpectedly operated without prior notice.
"The respondent no 9/ RP of Go Airlines has also not been able to show any urgency or any grave imminent threat to these aircraft to suddenly and without any prior notice, compel the respondent no.9 RP to fly these aircraft," she said.
"Prima facie, the term – scheduled maintenance cannot be understood to include flying the aircraft even if it is a non-commercial flight. Thus, respondent no.9/ RP of Go Airlines cannot be permitted at this stage, to continue with these handling/maintenance flights," she added.
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 had allowed flight of two aircraft owned by the petitioners without court’s permission.
On July 5, Justice Ganju had allowed aircraft lessors of cash-strapped Go First airline to inspect their aircraft at least twice a month and carry out maintenance. The plea argued that as per the abovementioned order, which directed that once the process of deregistration of aircraft has begun, the planes cannot be flown.
Counsel for the RP argued that there was an urgent need to make the aircraft flight ready according to the Resumption Plan approved by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on July 21, and the aviation regulator also required the airline to conduct handling or maintenance flights satisfactorily.
Justice Ganju, who on July 28, had directed that status quo be maintained in respect of handling/non-revenue flights of the petitioner lessors’ aircraft till August 3, extended the interim order till further orders.
On the other hand, senior advocate Ramji Srinivasan appeared for the RP and said that they have preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench (DB)'s July 12 order refusing to interfere with Justice Ganju's July 5 order allowing lessors to carry out maintenance work of their aircraft on lease.
"We are trying to get it listed on Friday or Monday," he added.
