Interim protection of leased aircraft preserved pending writ adjudication, with limited maintenance modification and monthly lessor inspections.

Interim directions in writ proceedings concerning leased aircraft were left substantially undisturbed because the core issues on the IBC moratorium, the lessors' rights under the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and the lease terms were still pending before the Single Judge. The HC declined to decide those substantive questions at the interlocutory stage, finding that the aircraft should be preserved from deterioration or cannibalisation until final adjudication. It made only a limited modification to permit the corporate debtor, through the resolution professional, to perform maintenance with due legal permissions, while allowing the lessors periodic monthly inspections. The writ petitions were directed to be decided expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim directions permitting access, inspection and maintenance of the leased aircraft and restricting removal of parts should be interfered with pending final adjudication of the writ petitions, and whether the maintenance direction required modification.

Analysis: The appeals arose from interlocutory directions in writ petitions concerning the interplay between the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the lessors' rights under the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and the lease agreements. The Court declined to pronounce on the contentious jurisdictional and substantive questions at the interim stage, noting that the writ petitions were still pending and that any conclusion on the merits could have wider consequences. The Court found it appropriate to leave the parties to urge all contentions before the learned Single Judge for final determination, while also noting the time required for regulatory consideration of resumption of flying operations. The interim directions were seen as aimed at preservation of the aircraft and preventing deterioration or cannibalisation.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the interim arrangement in substance, but modified the maintenance direction to permit the corporate debtor through the resolution professional to carry out all maintenance tasks of the aircraft with due permissions under the applicable law, while allowing the lessors periodic monthly inspections.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were left without a merits determination at this stage, with only a limited modification to the interim order and directions for expeditious consideration of the pending writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate interference with an interim order may be declined where the substantive issues are still pending before the writ court, and limited modification may be made only to preserve the subject property and balance the competing interests without deciding the merits.

---