NCLAT Reserves Orders On Ex-Employee's Challenge To Jet Airways Aircraft Sale

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Thursday reserved orders on an appeal filed by former Jet Airways employee Aman Monga challenging the dismissal of his application seeking to set aside the sale of certain Boeing 777-300ER aircraft assets during the airline's liquidation proceedings.

The bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Arun Baroka also granted the parties three days to file written submissions not exceeding two pages.

The appeal arises from an April 22, 2026, order of the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which dismissed an application filed by Monga and another former employee, Capt. R.P. Singh.

The application challenged the sale of the aircraft assets during the liquidation process. However, the NCLT dismissed it, holding that it was an attempt by former employees to further delay the realisation of the corporate debtor's assets.

Under the Committee of Creditors-approved resolution plan, the Monitoring Committee was tasked with auctioning three Jet Airways aircraft parked at Mumbai Airport. ACE Aviation received a letter of intent in October 2022 and deposited USD 5.6 million as earnest money. However, the Monitoring Committee put the sale on hold. In October 2023, the NCLT directed that the sale be completed. That order was later upheld by the NCLAT in December 2023 and by the Supreme Court in March 2024.

Meanwhile, Jet Airways was admitted into liquidation after the successful resolution applicant failed to implement the approved resolution plan.

The sale process thereafter continued under the liquidator. ACE Aviation and the lenders finalized the definitive sale agreements. Mumbai International Airport Ltd. (MIAL) objected to the transaction, claiming a lien over the aircraft. The tribunal nevertheless allowed the sale to proceed in accordance with the approved resolution plan and the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Before the NCLAT, Monga submitted that he had no objection to the Monitoring Committee's decision to sell the aircraft.

His grievance was that the liquidator, being a separate legal entity appointed after the commencement of liquidation, could not simply implement a decision taken by the Monitoring Committee without independently applying his mind.

The liquidator, in response, argued that he was duty-bound to complete processes that had already commenced before his appointment, including the sale of the aircraft.

After hearing the parties, the appellate tribunal reserved its order. It also permitted the parties to file written submissions within three days.