Delhi High Court Seeks Response from Go First Airlines RP

The Delhi High Court directed the Resolution Professional (RP) overseeing the grounded Go First Airlines to provide a response to allegations from a lessor.

The lessor claimed that the leased aircraft were not being properly maintained, despite court orders.

A company, which had leased aircraft to Go First, filed a contempt petition, asserting non-compliance with court orders related to the maintenance of planes and the provision of documents to lessors.

During the hearing, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju emphasized the collective detriment if the aircraft were not maintained, stating, “So if the aircraft is not being maintained, that is a problem for everybody.”

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the RP, opposed the issuance of a contempt notice and instead proposed filing an affidavit to address the allegations. The Court accepted this offer and set a deadline of December 10 for the filing.

Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju emphasized the importance of complying with the court orders, stating, “It goes without saying that orders of this Court passed from time to time are required to be complied with.”

The contempt plea is scheduled for further hearing on December 12.

While the contempt petition was filed by one company, other lessors informed the Court of similar issues but expressed their reluctance to file separate petitions for the sake of expediency.

Go First is currently undergoing insolvency proceedings, having initiated the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in May.

The lessors had approached the High Court seeking de-registration of their aircraft leased to Go First.

In October, the Court permitted the lessors to hire a 24-hour security service for their 54 planes leased to Go First Airlines and ordered the RP to provide access to relevant aircraft documents.

Earlier, on July 5, the High Court had granted aircraft lessors access to the planes for maintenance.

During December 5 proceedings, Senior Advocate Kevic Setalvad, representing one of the lessors, argued that maintenance was not taking place, and documents were not being provided.

Setalvad stressed the urgency of the situation, given the need for aircraft maintenance.

In response, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued against the filing of the contempt plea, citing various challenges faced by the grounded airline.

The Court also heard arguments on other petitions filed by lessors on December 5, with Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul resuming his arguments in the batch matter after addressing the contempt plea.