Akasa Air suit against 5 pilots: Bombay High Court reserves judgment on jurisdiction issue

The Bombay High Court Monday reserved its order on the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to hear the suit filed by Akasa Air against 5 pilots who recently resigned from the company without serving the mandatory notice period..The 5 pilots in question do not reside in Mumbai and, therefore, have objected to the suit being conducted in Mumbai..A single-judge bench of Justice SM Modak is likely to pronounce his decision on this aspect on September 27, 2023. .The airline company had filed a suit seeking compensation of ₹21 crores each from the 5 pilots.The plea was filed stating that these pilots had abruptly exited the company without serving the mandatory 6-month notice period. It sought an order directing the pilots to pay ₹18 lakh for breach of contract and ₹21 crore each for damages to the airline’s reputation due to flight cancellations, rescheduling and grounding..The aircraft carrier also prayed for an interim direction to the pilots to serve out their 6-month notice period.The pilots, meanwhile, claimed that the cause for the dispute between the parties arose outside Mumbai. Hence, the Bombay High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter, they said.They also claimed that the airline company was required to first obtain the leave of the court under clause XII of the Original Side Rules of the High Court to continue with its suit in Mumbai before seeking any other relief..Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas appeared for Akasa Air and argued today that the cause of action leading to the dispute was the resignation of pilots.He argued that resignation was also invalid as it did not comply with the requirements of an agreement clause.Dwarkadas added that accepting resignation was at the discretion of the company. He further argued that the place of execution of the agreement with the pilots was under debate, since Akasa claimed it was in Mumbai while the pilots said it was outside Mumbai.He prayed that the Court grant leave to proceed with the suit and then decide on the jurisdiction, based on the pleadings filed in the suit..Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, appearing for one of the pilots, argued that the acceptance of resignation was not required at all as the pilots are not restrained from resigning. Khambata argued that if it were assumed that the place of receiving relevant emails decides the jurisdiction for dispute, the place where the pilots receive emails about the acceptance of the resignation by the company would have jurisdiction, which is not in Mumbai. Khambata also argued that if the leave petition is to be decided ex-parte (without hearing the other side) only then should the averments in the plaint be considered. But in this case, the pilots had been issued notice, he contended. .Khambata along with Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina and advocates Rohan Dakshini, Shweta Jaydev, Janaki Garde, Chandrajit Das, Feroza Bharucha, and Arya Gadagkar, briefed by Rashmikant and Partners appeared for 3 pilots.Advocates Amit Mishra, Mitakshara Goyal, Shivam Singhania, and Nazish Alam from Svarniti Law Offices appeared for 2 pilots.