The Jet Airways liquidator moved the NCLAT against Boeing to recover $92.12 million in advance payments for undelivered aircraft. On Tuesday, the tribunal issued a notice to Boeing regarding the appeal. This follows a September 11 NCLT order that rejected the liquidator's plea to get the money back for creditors.
The liquidator of Jet Airways has approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), challenging an order that rejected his plea for the recovery of $92.12 million (approximately ₹873 crore) paid to Boeing as advances for aircraft that were never delivered to the airline.
A Bench comprising Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha on Tuesday issued notice to Boeing after finding that the appeal warranted consideration.
Boeing's counsel accepted the notice and was granted two weeks to file a reply. The liquidator has been given a week thereafter to submit a rejoinder. The matter will be taken up in the first week of December.
The appeal challenges a September 11 order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had dismissed liquidator Satish Kumar Gupta's application seeking recovery of $92.12 million from the aircraft manufacturer.
Appearing before the appellate tribunal, counsel for the liquidator alleged that Boeing had retained the advances paid by Jet Airways and subsequently lodged a claim for the unpaid contractual balance during the airline's insolvency process. The liquidator clarified that the appeal was confined to recovering the advance payments and that no interim relief was being sought.
A crisis with benefits: IL&FS enters new phase with recoveries on trackpremium
SC scrutiny of MCA control puts NCLT, NCLAT autonomy in spotlight
NCLT completely hijacked by Ministry of Corporate Affairs: Supreme Court
SC pulls up NCLAT for not hearing appeal despite earlier request
RCom RP files curative petition, challenging February SC spectrum ruling
The dispute stems from two purchase agreements signed in 2013 for Boeing 737-8 and 787-9 aircraft. Jet Airways made advance and pre-delivery payments under the agreements but could not fulfil its subsequent payment commitments amid mounting financial difficulties.
Boeing issued a suspension notice in May 2019, followed by a termination notice in December 2020. Neither of the aircraft covered by the agreements was delivered to the airline.
Before the NCLT Mumbai Bench, the liquidator had argued that the advance payments constituted assets of Jet Airways' liquidation estate and should be returned. He maintained that Boeing had no contractual or legal basis to retain the amounts.
Boeing, however, contended that the advances had already been adjusted against its outstanding claim against the airline. It argued that the liquidator could not seek repayment of sums that had been credited towards a larger claim admitted during the insolvency proceedings and subsequently recognised in liquidation.
The manufacturer also relied on Regulation 20 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, which allows the set-off of mutual dues.
The NCLT Mumbai Bench, comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar, had declined to adjudicate the competing claims under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
It observed that resolving the dispute would require an examination of the underlying purchase agreements, evidence from both parties and a full-fledged trial. Neither side had placed the agreements on record, citing confidentiality concerns.
"These questions require evaluation of Agreements between the Parties, leading of evidence by the Parties and a full-fledged trial," the tribunal had observed.
Holding that the contractual dispute was independent of the insolvency proceedings, the NCLT dismissed the liquidator's application without determining whether Boeing was entitled to forfeit or adjust the advance payments.
The liquidator has now challenged that decision before the NCLAT.