Court upholds order granting possession to Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd over unpaid dues

The Court dismissed the appeals challenging the order dated 22nd April, 2008, which granted Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd the right to take possession of goods without payment of dues. The Court held that the property in goods had not passed to AES due to non-payment of the full sale consideration. The order of restraint on the appellants was to protect the goods under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Pawan Hans was entitled to possession, and the appellants could recover charges from AES. The Court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the Single Judge's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the challenge to a common order and judgment dated 22nd April, 2008, regarding the vacation of an ex parte ad interim order, removal of goods by Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd, and restraint on alienating, encumbering, and disposing of goods.

Facts and Decision:

1. The appeals FAO(OS) 258/2008 and FAO(OS) 259/2008 were filed challenging the common order dated 22nd April, 2008. The appellants sought vacation of an ex parte ad interim order and removal of goods by Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd after paying dues for transportation and warehousing charges. The learned Single Judge granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellants from alienating, encumbering, or disposing of the goods. Pawan Hans was permitted to lift goods without payment of warehousing or transportation charges.

2. Pawan Hans had an agreement with AES for the sale of helicopters and spares. The agreement faced issues when the second consignment was to be delivered. AES appointed FJF as the authorized transporter. AES issued instructions regarding the movement of cargo, and the goods were stored with SWC. AES went into liquidation, leading to non-payment of transportation and warehousing charges by Pawan Hans.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the applications filed by the appellants and allowed Pawan Hans to take possession of the goods without payment of dues. The appellants contended that they were not parties to the arbitration agreement and should not be deprived of their legitimate dues. The property in goods was to pass only upon payment of the entire sale consideration, which had not been done.

4. The Court held that the property in goods had not passed to AES due to non-payment of the full sale consideration. FJF was appointed by AES and could only be considered the agent of AES, not Pawan Hans. The order of restraint on the appellants was intended to preserve and protect the goods, falling within the ambit of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Pawan Hans was entitled to possession of the goods, and the appellants could recover their charges from AES.

5. The appeals were dismissed as the Court found no merit in them, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved, the relevant facts, and the decision rendered by the Court in the case.

---