9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1427 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking de-registration of aircrafts (the details qua which I shall provide hereafter), upon termination of the lease agreements - HELD THAT - The existence of lien under Article 39(1)(a) of the Convention has nothing to do with the remedy which the petitioners seek to avail of under Article IX of the Protocol. Deregistration of the aircraft is not, hampered by the existence of liens, if any, under the Municipal Law of the Contracting State. The liens, as indicated above, under Article 39(1) (a) shall obtain if so provided under the Municipal Law. The extent of the lien shall also be governed by the Municipal Law and not by the Convention. One cannot quibble with the proposition that a court cannot issue a writ of mandamus where, an authority, is not required to act in a particular manner by express provisions of law. This dicta finds reflection even in Paragraph 12 of that judgement rendered in the case of UP SRTC Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ismail Anr. 1991 (4) TMI 437 - SUPREME COURT - The obligation, cast on DGCA under clause (iv), sub-rule (6) of Rule 30 of the Aircraft Rules requires it to de-register an aircraft if, the lease agreement qua the aircraft object is not in force. Notably, like under clause (iv), each of the circumstances set out in subrule (6) are independent of each other. It may be, in a given situation that, more than one circumstance is attracted. A bare perusal of the unamended clauses of sub-rule (6) of Rule 30 would show that all that the DGCA is required to do is to ascertain whether circumstances exist, once it is found circumstances exist as contemplated in the relevant clause, and the DGCA is found wanting, a writ of mandamus could issue to compel performance. The fulfilment of ministerial act and, therefore, vesting of a minor discretion in that behalf, if it can be called one ought not to deter a court from not issuing a writ of mandamus. The learned ASG was not able to inform as to whether or not, there are liens obtaining vis-a-vis the aircraft objects under the Municipal law; as contemplated under Article 39(1) of the Convention. The difficulty has been compounded by the fact that the DGCA, has not filed its return in the matter. Therefore, the DGCA will, take a decision in the matter qua liens, if any, obtaining. The decision in the matter will be taken by the DGCA within two (2) weeks from today. Thus, DGCA will, forthwith, de-register the aircraft objects - petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. De-registration of aircrafts upon termination of lease agreements. 2. Compliance with Article IX of the Protocol and related provisions of the Convention. 3. Obligations and powers of the DGCA under Rule 30 of the Aircraft Rules. 4. Impact of declarations lodged by the Government of India under the Convention. 5. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the petitions in light of parallel proceedings in the English Court. 6. Equity considerations and public interest arguments raised by Spicejet. Detailed Analysis: 1. De-registration of Aircrafts upon Termination of Lease Agreements: The petitioners sought the de-registration of aircrafts following the termination of their lease agreements with Spicejet. The lease agreements were terminated due to Spicejet's default in payment of lease rents. The petitioners had issued default-cum-termination notices and requested the DGCA to de-register the aircrafts from the Indian Civil Aviation Register (ICAR). 2. Compliance with Article IX of the Protocol and Related Provisions of the Convention: The petitioners argued that having terminated the lease and lodged the IDERA with the DGCA, the provisions of Article IX of the Protocol were triggered, entitling them to de-registration of the aircrafts. Article IX confers additional rights on the creditor to procure de-registration and export of the aircraft without court intervention, provided all registered interests ranking in priority have been discharged or consented to the de-registration. 3. Obligations and Powers of the DGCA under Rule 30 of the Aircraft Rules: The DGCA is mandated to cancel the registration of an aircraft if the lease is not in force, as per Rule 30(6)(iv) of the Aircraft Rules. The recent amendment to Rule 30, inserting sub-rule (7), clarified that upon receiving an application from an IDERA holder along with necessary documents, the DGCA must cancel the registration. The court concluded that the DGCA's duty to de-register the aircrafts is mandatory once the conditions are fulfilled. 4. Impact of Declarations Lodged by the Government of India under the Convention: The declarations under Article 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Convention prioritize certain non-consensual rights or interests (NCRIs) over registered international interests. However, the court noted that these declarations do not impede the de-registration process under Article IX of the Protocol. The existence of liens under the Municipal Law does not affect the petitioners' right to seek de-registration. 5. Jurisdiction and Maintainability of the Petitions in Light of Parallel Proceedings in the English Court: The court held that the jurisdiction of the Indian court is not ousted by the petitioners' parallel proceedings in the English Court. The aircrafts are registered with the DGCA, and the particulars are mentioned in the ICAR, thus falling within the jurisdiction of the Indian court. 6. Equity Considerations and Public Interest Arguments Raised by Spicejet: Spicejet contended that de-registration would cause great prejudice and impact public interest, including employment and passenger bookings. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that honoring treaty obligations and adhering to contractual commitments serve a larger public interest. The court also dismissed the argument that the petitioners' security deposits were sufficient to cover the claims, noting that the petitioners' commercial judgment should prevail. Conclusion: The court directed the DGCA to de-register the aircrafts as the conditions prescribed under Rule 30(7) were met. The DGCA was also instructed to decide on the existence of any liens under the Municipal Law within two weeks and address the petitioners' request for the export of the aircrafts. The petitions were thus disposed of with these directions.
|
