HC issues contempt notice to Go First’s RP
The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued a contempt notice against Go First’s resolution professional (RP) after the bankrupt airline’s lessors filed a case claiming he had defied the court orders regarding maintenance of their aircraft.
The court, however, clarified that this is merely a notice, and no coercive action would be taken against the RP, Shailendra Ajmera, nor would he need to be summoned.
Nevertheless, Ajmera is required to explain to the court why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
The court had on 1 March ordered Go First’s RP to respond whether he was ready to transfer the responsibility of maintaining the aircraft back to the lessors. The lessors had filed an affidavit stating that the RP had failed to maintain their aircraft leased to Go First.
The RP had informed the court that he was willing to hand over the responsibility of maintaining the aircraft to the lessors, and that maintenance work on several aircraft had already commenced.
The court, however, expressed its dissatisfaction with the RP’s response, noting that he had not complied with the court’s instructions, and issued the contempt notice.
DAE (SY22) 13 Ireland Designated Activity Co., one of Go First’s lessors, had filed the contempt petition against the RP in November. Ten out of 14 lessors in the case supported the plea for contempt proceedings against him.
During the previous hearing, the RP informed the court that he had partially complied with its order by providing maintenance documents to all lessors and initiating steps for maintenance.
The RP also mentioned issuing a work order and the appointment of a continuing airworthiness management organization (CAMO) by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation for aircraft maintenance. Additionally, he informed about meetings with lessors in Mumbai where an agreement was reached to appoint a third party for maintenance.
The RP further stated that maintenance delays occurred due to the resignation of the previous CAMO and a lack of manpower, emphasizing that the delay was not intentional but due to unforeseen circumstances as the airline has not been operational since its bankruptcy.
The court also clarified this is merely a notice, and no coercive action would be taken against the RP