Akasa Air moves Bombay High Court seeking damages of ₹21 crore each from 5 pilots who resigned without notice

Airline company Akasa Air has filed a suit before the Bombay High Court seeking compensation of ₹21 crores each from five pilots who resigned from the company. [SNV Aviation Pvt Ltd v. Capt. Gareema Kumar and others].The plea was filed stating that the 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.They also prayed for an interim direction to the pilots to serve their 6-month notice period.The pilots claimed that the cause for the dispute between the parties arose outside Mumbai and hence, the Bombay High Court has no jurisdiction to hear such matters. They also claimed that the airline company was required to first obtain 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..Single-judge Justice SM Modak heard the airline company at length today. The pilots then began their submissions and will continue their arguments on September 25..The suit filed through law firm Trilegal pointed out that the pilots had executed individual employment agreement as well as a pilot’s training agreement with the company. The employment agreement specified that pilots have to serve a six-month notice period after tendering their resignation.He pointed out that the contract specifically stated that any disputes arising from the contract were exclusively to be filed before courts and judicial forums in Mumbai.The training agreement also specified that the term of training was 2 years and in the event the pilot breached this agreement, an amount of ₹18 lakh would be payable to the company by the concerned pilot.The pilots had also been directed to submit four undated cheques to the company at the time of signing of the agreement which would be encashed by the company in Mumbai in case of breach of agreement by the pilot. .Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas argued that since the pilots had executed their agreements in Mumbai and the company had received their resignation notices in Mumbai, the cause of action arising from the breach of the contract arose in Mumbai.Hence, the suit was maintainable before the Bombay High Court, it was contended.He also pointed out the pilots would dispute the facts raised by the company but this was a question that the court could decide at the interim stage after hearing the parties on merit..Senior Advocate Darius Khambata who appeared for one of the pilots opposed the application for leave under clause XII vehemently. He stated at the outset that one could not choose court jurisdiction by way of contract and no court could be given exclusive jurisdiction under a contract. He submitted that the agreement had been executed outside Mumbai as the company had sent hard copies of the agreements to the pilots for signatures and they had then sent it back to the company. He further argued that the pilots had sent their resignations from places outside Mumbai. He submitted that the place where the resignation was accepted could not be the jurisdiction of the court.He highlighted that the Delhi High Court had higher court fees, which was one of the reasons the company was filing its suit in Mumbai. .Dwarkadas was briefed by a team from Trilegal consisting of advocates Ashish Bhan, Aayush Mitruka, Lisa Mishra, Sonal Singh, Preksha Gupta, and Abhinav Shrivastav for Akasa.Khambata along with Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina and advocates Rohan Dakshini, Shweta Jaydev, Janaki Garde, Chandrajit Das, Feroza Bharucha, 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.[Read order]