Bombay High Court reserves decision on jurisdiction issue


Akasa Air

Akasa Air

The Bombay High Court on Monday reserved its order on the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to hear the suit filed by Akasa Air against five pilots who recently resigned from the company without completing the mandatory notice period. Was.

The 5 pilots in question do not reside in Mumbai and hence, have objected to being tried in Mumbai.

single-judge bench of justice SM Modak It is likely to pronounce its decision on this aspect on September 27, 2023.

The airline company had filed a suit demanding compensation of Rs 21 crore from each of the five pilots.

The petition was filed saying that these pilots had suddenly walked out of the company without completing the mandatory notice period of 6 months.

It sought an order directing the pilots to pay ₹18 lakh each for breach of contract and ₹21 crore each for the damage caused to the reputation of the airline due to flight cancellation, rescheduling and grounding.

The aircraft carrier also prayed for interim instructions to the pilots to complete their six-month notice period.

Meanwhile, the pilots claimed that the reason for the dispute between the parties originated outside Mumbai. Therefore, the Bombay High Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case, he said.

He also claimed that the airline company would have to first seek the court’s permission under Clause XII of the High Court’s substantive party rules to continue its litigation in Mumbai before seeking any other relief.

senior lawyer Janak Dwarkadas Akasa, appearing for Air, today argued that the reason for the dispute was the resignation of the pilots.

He argued that the resignation was also invalid because it did not comply with the requirements of the clause of the agreement.

Dwarkadas said it was up to the discretion of the company to accept the resignation.

He further argued that there was an ongoing debate with the pilots over the place of execution of the agreement, as Akasa claimed it was in Mumbai while the pilots said it was outside Mumbai.

He prayed that the court should allow the suit to proceed and then decide on jurisdiction based on the pleadings filed in the suit.

senior lawyer darius khambattaAppearing for one of the pilots, argued that there was no need to accept the resignation at all as pilots were not prevented from resigning.

Khambatta argued that if it is assumed that the place of receipt of the relevant emails decides the jurisdiction for the dispute, then the place where the pilots receive the emails about the acceptance of resignation by the company would be the place of jurisdiction, which Not in Mumbai.

Khambatta also argued that if the leave petition is to be decided partisan (Without hearing the other party) Only then should the averments made in the plaint be considered. He argued that but in this case a notice had been issued to the pilots.

Khambatta with senior lawyer जाल अंध्यारुजिना And the information was given by advocates Rohan Dakshin, Shweta Jaydev, Janaki Garde, Chandrajit Das, Firozha Bharucha and Arya Gadagkar. Rashmikant and Partners Appeared for 3 pilots.

Advocates Amit Mishra, Mitakshara Goyal, Shivam Singhania and Nazish Alam Swarniti Law Office Appeared for 2 pilots.

Leave a Comment

“The Untold Story: Yung Miami’s Response to Jimmy Butler’s Advances During an NBA Playoff Game” “Unveiling the Secrets: 15 Astonishing Facts About the PGA Championship”