National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal by Former Employees Against Liquidation Sale of Aircraft Assets. The court upheld the sale process conducted under the supervision of the liquidator, confirming that employees' dues would be addressed under the waterfall mechanism of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by former employees of Jet Airways (India) Limited against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissing their application regarding the sale of aircraft assets during liquidation proceedings. The insolvency process against Jet Airways was initiated on 20 June 2019, leading to the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. The resolution plan was approved on 22 June 2021, and a Monitoring Committee was established. A sale process for certain aircraft assets was initiated, but the transaction was not completed. The NCLT directed the sale to be resumed on 17 October 2023, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 7 March 2024. Liquidation was ordered on 7 November 2024, and the sale of aircraft assets was executed on 5 February 2026. The appellants contended that the sale was undervalued and illegal, claiming they had locus to challenge it due to their status as employees owed dues. The respondents argued that the appellants lacked standing and that the sale process was valid and supervised. The court analyzed the appellants' claims, emphasizing that their dues would be addressed under the waterfall mechanism of Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments and confirming the legality of the sale process.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Locus Standi - Right to Challenge Sale - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 53 - Appellants claimed interest in the sale of aircraft assets as former employees. Court held that their concerns were addressed under the waterfall mechanism, and they lacked locus to challenge the sale process (Paras 10, 39).

B) Liquidation Proceedings - Sale of Assets - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 35 - The sale of aircraft was conducted under the supervision of the liquidator and approved by the Adjudicating Authority. Court found no illegality in the sale process, which was initiated during the insolvency process (Paras 26, 39).

C) Valuation of Assets - Undervaluation Claims - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 53 - Appellants alleged undervaluation of aircraft sold during liquidation. Court determined that the sale price was established through a competitive process and upheld the valuation as valid (Paras 11, 28).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants, as former employees, had the locus to challenge the sale of aircraft assets during liquidation proceedings.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the appellants' claims and confirming the legality of the sale process conducted by the liquidator.

Law Points

  • Insolvency process
  • Liquidation proceedings
  • Sale of assets
  • Locus standi
  • Valuation of assets
  • Employees' dues
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 15

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1257 of 2026

2026-08-21

Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Arun Baroka

Ms. Sharmistha Choudhury, Mr. Shiv Prakash Pandey, Mr. Raghav Chadha, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Ms. Vasudha Jain, Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Ritin Rai, Ms. Petruskha Dasgupta, Mr. Raghav Mittal, Ms. Brideepa Bhattacharya, Mr. Mehul Kumar, Ms. Anushka Chauhan, Ms. Ilina Peehu, Mr. Chaitley Sharma

Aman Monga & Anr.

The Liquidator of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against dismissal of application regarding sale of aircraft assets during liquidation.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to declare the sale of aircraft assets as vitiated.

Filing Reason

Claimed undervaluation and illegal execution of sale during liquidation.

Previous Decisions

NCLT dismissed the application, affirming the legality of the sale process.

Issues

Whether the appellants had locus to challenge the sale of aircraft assets. Whether the sale process was conducted legally and fairly.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued they had an interest in the sale as former employees and claimed undervaluation. Respondents contended that the appellants lacked standing and that the sale process was valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellants, as former employees, lacked locus to challenge the sale process, which was conducted legally under the supervision of the liquidator, and their dues would be addressed under the waterfall mechanism of Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellants claimed interest in the sale of aircraft assets as former employees. The sale of aircraft was conducted under the supervision of the liquidator and approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The sale price was established through a competitive process and upheld the valuation as valid.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the NCLT's order dismissing the application regarding the sale of aircraft assets during liquidation. The NCLT had previously approved the resolution plan and directed the sale process to be resumed.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7, Section 16, Section 22, Section 33, Section 35, Section 36, Section 53
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Employees' Right to Bonus Under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 — Clarifies Applicability Despite Authorised Controller Appointment.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Consumer Protection Case — Insurance Claim Repudiation Set Aside. The repudiation of the insurance claim was found to be unjustified as the insurer failed to prove the applicability of the Exclusion Clause under the C...