IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Judgment delivered on: 8th April, 2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
    W.P.(C) 7661/2012 and CM No.4208/2013  
 . 
 08.04.2013 
 . 
 DVB AVIATION FINANCE ASIA PTE LTD     ..... Petitioner 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION 
 . 
 AND ANR        ..... Respondents 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Advocates who appeared in this case: 
 . 
 For the petitioner:  Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aslam 
 . 
 Ahmed, Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Mr. Babit Singh 
 . 
 Jamwal and Mr. Ajay Achuttan, Advocates 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 For the Respondents: Ms. Anjana Gosain and Mr. R.L. Goel, Advocates 
 . 
 for R-1/UOI 
 . 
 Mr. Abhijeet Swarup, Adv. for R-2 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 1. By virtue of this writ petition, a challenge is laid to the 
 communications dated 18.10.2012 and 25.10.2012 issued by respondent no.1 
 to the petitioner.  The net effect of these communications is that 
 respondent no.1, which is DGCA, has refused to de-register the aircrafts 
 in 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 issue, on the purported ground that consent of both parties i.e., 
 lessor/owner and lessee/operator is required for registration of the 
 aircrafts in issue. 
 . 
 2. There are other directions sought in the writ petition, which are 
 in the nature of mandamus to the effect that a direction be issued to 
 respondent no.1 to de-register the aircrafts and respondent no.2 to 
 return the documents and manuals relating to one of the aircrafts, which 
 is given, registration no.2817. 
 . 
 3. This writ petition has been filed in the background of the 
 following broad facts:- 
 . 
 3.1 The petitioner had entered into two separate lease agreements of 
 even date i.e., 30.06.2006 vis-a-vis two aircrafts bearing nos.2817 and 
 2856.  The petitioners apparently also got two separate letters of even 
 date executed vis-a-vis the said aircrafts i.e., aircraft nos.2817 and 
 2856, empowering the petitioner to de-register the aircrafts.  These 
 letters are dated 03.07.2006. 
 . 
 3.2 On 17.09.2008, respondent no.1 granted registration to the said aircrafts.  Aircraft no.2817 was issued the registration marking VT KFM, 
 while aircraft no.2856 was given the registration marking VT KFL. 
 . 
 3.3 It appears that respondent no.2 was in breach of the aforementioned 
 two lease agreements.  Consequently, the aforesaid two lease agreement 
 dated 30.06.2006, were terminated.  The lease agreement in respect of 
 aircraft no.2856 was terminated on 12.03.2012, whereas the lease 
 agreement in respect of aircraft no.2817 was terminated on 02.07.2012. 
 These termination letters were followed by notice of default termination 
 dated 16.03.2012 and 16.07.2012 qua aircrafts nos.2856 and 2817, 
 respectively.  It appears that qua aircraft no.2856, a supplemental 
 notice of default was also issued, on 02.07.2012. 
 . 
 3.4 It is not disputed before me that both aircrafts no.2856 and 2817 
 are presently in Istanbul in Turkey. 
 . 
 3.5 In so far as aircraft no.2856 is concerned, respondent no.2, as a 
 matter of fact, issued a notice on 02.07.2012 indicating therein the 
 factum of termination of the lease agreement qua that aircraft. 
 . 
 3.6 Apparently, the petitioner applied to respondent no.1 for de- 
 registration of the aforementioned two aircrafts, on 14.08.2012.  This 
 request was reiterated from time to time. 
 . 
 3.7 To cut a long story a short on 06.09.2012, respondent no.1 sent 
 email to the petitioner forwarding a communication dated 28.08.2012 
 issued by respondent no.2.  This communication was responded to by the 
 petitioner on 11.09.2012 setting out their side of the story.  To be 
 noted, qua the issue of de-registration, several meetings were held in 
 the interregnum with officers of respondent no.1 as well as Director and 
 Dy. Director of respondent no.1, namely Mr. S.N. Dwivedi and Mr. Pawan 
 Kumar.   Apparently, nothing came out  of these meetings and therefore, 
 representations were sent on the issue of de-registration by the 
 petitioner to respondent no.1 on 21.09.2012, followed by two emails dated 
 04.10.2012 and 10.10.2012. 
 . 
 3.8 Strangely on 18.10.2012, respondent no.1 informed the petitioner 
 that the aircrafts can only be de-registered if consent of both the 
 operator/lessee and the owner/lessor was in place.   The operator being 
 respondent no.1 while the owner being the petitioner.  The communication 
 dated 19.10.2012, was issued by the petitioner, bringing to the notice of 
 respondent no.1 that there was no consent of the operator i.e., 
 respondent no.2 required for de-registration of the said aircrafts.  It 
 was brought to the notice of respondent no.1 that, by virtue of the 
 irrevocable power of attorney dated 03.07.2006, the petitioner is 
 authorised on behalf of respondent no.2 to seek de-registration. 
 . 
 3.9 Interestingly, respondent no.1, suspended the Scheduled Operators 
 Permit of respondent no.2, on 20.10.2012. 
 . 
 4. Five (5) days later, respondent no.1 vide email dated 25.10.2012 
 declined to de-register the aircrafts of the petitioner. 
 . 
 5. I have put to  learned counsel for respondent no.1 as to its stand 
 with regard to de-registration of the aircrafts in issue. 
 . 
 . 
 6. Ms. Gosain, who appears for respondent no.1 submits that, at a meeting held on 26.03.2012 under the aegis of the Secretary, Govt. of 
 India, Ministry of Civil Aviation DGCA has informed all concerned that 
 notwithstanding dues of other authorities, the DGCA cannot keep the de- 
 registration, on hold. 
 . 
 6.1 Ms. Gosain informs me that, dues owed to the office of the 
 Commissioner Service Tax on account of service tax runs into 55 Crores, 
 including interest. 
 . 
 6.2 Apart from that, Ms. Gosain says that there are no other 
 objections. 
 . 
 7. It may be relevant to note that notice in the writ petition was 
 issued on 10.12.2012.  On that date, time was granted to both respondent 
 nos.1 and 2 to file their counter affidavits.  The matter was made 
 returnable for today.  In the interregnum, an application for early 
 hearing was moved by the petitioner on the ground that time granted to 
 file a counter affidavit had already expired despite which no counter 
 affidavit has been filed. 
 . 
 7.1 While disposing of the application on the ground that the board did 
 not permit advancing the date of hearing, it was made clear that if the 
 counter affidavits are not filed, adverse inference would be drawn.  Even 
 though a counter affidavit has apparently, been filed on behalf of 
 respondent no.1, it has been returned by the Registry on account of 
 office objection. Presumably, it has been returned by the registry on 
 account of delay in filing the counter affidavit. To correct the course, 
 respondent no.1 has moved an application being: CM No.4208/2013, for 
 condonation of delay.  To be noted, the delay is of 25 days.  The learned 
 senior counsel for the petitioner on instructions say that they do not 
 oppose the application for delay.  Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 
 The counter affidavit is formally taken on record. 
 . 
 7.2 In so far as respondent no.2 is concerned, it has not filed any 
 return.  Accordingly their opportunity to file a counter affidavit is 
 closed. 
 . 
 7.3 At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 seeks 
 further time to file a counter affidavit, having regard to the grievance 
 of the petitioner that each day?s delay is causing them huge financial 
 loss, this request cannot be entertained. 
 . 
 7.4 Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has been given an opportunity 
 to make submissions based on the record in respect of its client?s stand. 
 The learned counsel for respondent no.2, declined to make any submission. 
 . 
 8. Therefore, the only ground for refusing the registration which 
 emanates from the record is the stand of respondent no.1 that they would 
 de-register only if there is consent both of the operator and the owner 
 i.e., the respondent no.2 and also the petitioner.  This ground is 
 specious, in view of the documents, which has been placed on record i.e., 
 letter of de-registration dated 03.07.2006 and the irrevocable power of 
 attorney dated 03.07.2006, both of which empower the petitioner  to act 
 on behalf of respondent no.2 and seek de-registration.  As a matter of 
 fact, these documents were placed before respondent no.1 at the time of 
 the registration of the aircrafts. 
 . 
 8.1 There is no other ground advanced on behalf of respondent no.1. 
 . 
 9. As noticed above, respondent no.1 has already in its meeting taken 
 by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation made its 
 stand clear that they cannot withhold de-registration.  In any event, 
 this issue is covered by my judgment in the case of Corporate Aircraft 
 Funding Company LLC Vs. Union of India and Ors., passed in WP (C) 
 792/2012 dated 14.03.2013.  It is made clear that if there are any dues 
 of any other authority such as the on account of service tax, etc., the 
 said statutory authorities will be free to take appropriate steps in that 
 behalf against respondent no.2. 
 . 
 10. There is one last thing, which I would like to deal with, which was 
 also noticed by me in the order dated 10.12.2012 when, notice in the writ 
 petition was issued. 
 . 
 10.1 I have put to the learned counsel for the petitioner the contents 
 of the communication dated 28.08.2012 issued by respondent no.2.  Mr. 
 Kaul submits that facts stated therein are completely incorrect and these 
 have been explained in the petitioner?s communication dated 11.09.2012. 
 . 
 10.2 I have examined the contents of respondent no.2?s communication 
 dated 28.08.2012.  It seems to suggest that respondent no.2 has claimed 
 some right to purchase the two aircrafts in issue, therefore, contested 
 the right of the petitioner to unilaterally terminate the contract. 
 . 
 10.3 In my view, these inter-se rights cannot come in the way of the 
 petitioner seeking de-registration of the aircrafts from respondent no.1. 
 In any event, the aforementioned two aircrafts are outside the 
 jurisdiction of the court. Admittedly, they are parked at Istanbul in 
 Turkey. 
 . 
 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. 
 Respondent no.1 is directed to de-register the aircrafts in issue. 
 Respondent no.2 is directed to furnish the original documents and manuals 
 pertaining to aircraft no.2817, if they are presently in possession of 
 respondent no.2. 
 . 
 12. Needless to say, both respondents shall comply with the directions 
 issued by this court, with four weeks from today. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 
 . 
 APRIL     08, 2013 
 . 
 Yg 
 . 
 W.P.(C) 7661/2012   Page 7 of 7 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 .