TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Aircraft sale proceeds to remain in escrow while NCLT decides airport dues priority and parties cooperate with removal</h1> <h3>Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Versus ACE Aviation VIII Ltd. & Ors.</h3> NCLAT addressed a dispute over priority of airport dues, including parking and hangar charges, in the liquidation of a corporate debtor whose aircraft had ... Priority of recovery of AIRPORT dues in a liquidation proceedings - Appellant’s claim of parking charges due from the CD for using the hangars, and other dues - entitlement for a priority in payment by the liquidator out of the sale proceeds of the assets of Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- These issues are left open for the consideration of the NCLT. In the meantime, the liquidator is required to keep the sale proceeds of the aircrafts in an escrow account until the two issues herein raised are finally resolved by the NCLT. This Tribunal considers that these arrangements would take care of the interests of the appellant as well as the auction-purchaser. In view of the same, the appellant is directed not to obstruct the respondents 1 to 3 from removing the aircrafts which is the subject matter of the Order of the NCLT, dated 07.08.2025 and to lend its full co-operation in implementing the said Order. Appeal disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether a claimant in liquidation proceedings, asserting substantial airport dues and priority in the waterfall mechanism, can withhold cooperation in release/removal of auctioned aircraft from the airport, despite a consent order permitting sale and withdrawal of lien vis-à-vis the auction purchasers. 1.2 Whether, pending adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority on the quantum of the claimant's dues and its position in the waterfall mechanism, an arrangement should be put in place to secure the claimant's interests in the sale proceeds of the auctioned aircraft. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Obligation to cooperate with removal of aircraft and effect of consent order Interpretation and reasoning 2.1 The consent order dated 07.08.2025 records that the claimant has no objection to the conclusion of the sale of three specified aircraft to the auction purchasers, releases all liens and encumbrances on those aircraft qua the auction purchasers from the Closing Date, and agrees to steps enabling the removal and export of the aircraft, subject to payment of specified 'New Airport Dues' post-Closing Date. 2.2 The subsequent order dated 17.09.2025 directs the claimant to extend full cooperation and provide the draft NOC and other documentation within seven days, emphasizing that its lien would be dealt with in accordance with law dehors the consent for waiver of lien over the aircraft. 2.3 The Tribunal notes that the claimant's primary substantive concerns relate to (i) the quantum of its admitted claim and (ii) its priority in distribution in the liquidation waterfall, and that these issues are already seized of by the Adjudicating Authority in pending proceedings. 2.4 To balance the claimant's apprehensions with the rights of the auction purchasers to obtain peaceful use, possession and removal of the aircraft under the consent order, the Tribunal considers that the claimant's claim over sale proceeds, rather than a continuing operational obstruction to removal of the aircraft, is the appropriate mode of protection. Conclusions 2.5 The claimant is not entitled to obstruct removal of the aircraft from the airport on the ground of unresolved disputes regarding quantum and priority of its dues. 2.6 The claimant is directed to lend full cooperation to the auction purchasers and not to obstruct removal of the aircraft covered by the consent order dated 07.08.2025, and to facilitate implementation of that order, including issuance of necessary documentation/NOC. Issue 2 - Protection of claimant's interests pending determination of quantum and priority Interpretation and reasoning 2.7 The Tribunal recognizes that two questions remain to be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority: (a) the quantum of dues admissible to the claimant and (b) its priority in the waterfall mechanism for distribution of liquidation proceeds. 2.8 To ensure that these pending issues are not rendered illusory by completion of sale and removal of the aircraft, the Tribunal considers it appropriate that the sale proceeds be preserved intact pending the Adjudicating Authority's decision. Conclusions 2.9 The questions of (a) quantum of the claimant's entitlement and (b) its position in the waterfall mechanism are left open to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority in the pending applications. 2.10 The liquidator is directed to keep the sale proceeds of the aircraft in an escrow account until the above issues are finally resolved by the Adjudicating Authority. 2.11 The liquidator is granted liberty to approach the Adjudicating Authority for any clarification required regarding implementation of this escrow arrangement. 2.12 With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
