NCLT Mumbai Says Mumbai, Delhi Airport Operators Are Unsecured Creditors In Jet Airways Liquidation

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, has recently held that Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) and Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) are not secured creditors in the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Ltd, rejecting their contention that airport regulations conferred a lien over aircraft for unpaid dues

“Hence, we are of considered view that the applicant is an unsecured creditor and its claims is to be dealt with accordingly,” the tribunal held.

Jet Airways was ordered into liquidation on November 26, 2024, pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court on November 7, 2024 after recording non-implementation of the approved resolution plan.

In its order dated February 13, 2026, a bench of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar considered applications filed by MIAL and DIAL challenging the liquidator's decision classifying their airport dues as operational debt and refusing them secured creditor status.

MIAL and DIAL had argued that Regulation 10 of the Airports Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations, 2003 created a lien over aircraft for unpaid airport dues, thereby amounting to a “security interest” under Section 3(31) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Rejecting this contention, the tribunal observed,

“In terms of Regulation 10 of Airports Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations, 2003, the applicant may have right to detain or stop the departure of the aircraft of debtor, however, the said provision does not create any lien over the said aircrafts.”

The bench held that the regulations merely confer a right to detain aircraft in case of non-payment and do not create a charge or security interest within the meaning of the Code, and that once liquidation commences, claims must be dealt with in accordance with the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC.

The tribunal also rejected reliance on the Aircraft Objects Act, 2025, holding that the statute came into force after commencement of liquidation and, in any event, did not apply to the applicant's position as a service provider.

MIAL had claimed approximately Rs. 838 crore towards airport dues, including parking charges, hangar charges, terminal rent and land charges accruing during the CIRP period, the post-approval implementation phase and the liquidation period. DIAL had also filed a separate claim in respect of airport dues arising from facilities and services provided at the Delhi airport during the relevant periods.

While upholding the liquidator's rejection of secured creditor status, the tribunal drew a distinction regarding certain components of the claim.

It held that airport parking and storage charges accruing during the moratorium period were covered by the Insolvency Resolution Process Costs framework to the limited extent that the operators' rights were prejudicially affected by the bar under Section 14(1)(d) of the Code.

The tribunal observed that “the costs accruing in relation thereto certainly are insolvency resolution process costs in terms of Regulation 31(e) read with Section 5(13)(e) of IBC and the costs falling within scope of this provision does not require approval of CoC also, as Regulation 31B was inserted w.e.f. 15.2.2024.”

However, other airport dues not directly attributable to the moratorium were not entitled to be treated as CIRP costs.

The bench also clarified that “the applicant, even if it may be entitled to interest on outstanding dues, can not claim interest on interest amount included in pre-CIRP dues admitted in CIRP process.”