Mumbai, September 11, 2026: The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed an application filed by the liquidator of Jet Airways (India) Limited seeking a refund of $92.129 million paid to United States of America (USA)-based Boeing Company as advance payments for aircraft that were never delivered.
A bench comprising Member (Technical) Prabhat Kumar and Member (Judicial) Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, in an order delivered on September 11, held that the dispute between Jet Airways and Boeing arose primarily from their contractual agreements and involved disputed questions of fact and law that could not be adjudicated in the NCLT’s summary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Liquidator Seeks Refund
The application was filed by Jet Airways’ liquidator, Satish Kumar Gupta, seeking directions to Boeing to refund advance and pre-delivery payments aggregating $92,129,387 made towards the purchase of Boeing aircraft. The liquidator contended that the amount formed part of the liquidation estate of Jet Airways and was liable to be returned.
According to the order, Jet Airways and Boeing had entered into purchase agreements in 2013 for Boeing 737-8 and Boeing 787-9 aircraft. Jet Airways subsequently deposited $92,129,387 with Boeing as advance/pre-delivery payments. However, the airline was unable to make certain further payments, following which Boeing issued a notice in May 2019 suspending performance under the agreements. Jet Airways entered the corporate insolvency resolution process in June 2019.
Boeing Disputes Refund Claim
During the insolvency proceedings, Boeing filed a claim of $275.33 million. The amount admitted by the resolution professional was Rs 721.19 crore and subsequently increased to Rs 873.78 crore during liquidation due to currency fluctuations. The liquidator later sought the refund of the advance payments after Boeing terminated the purchase agreements without delivering any aircraft.
The liquidator had argued that Boeing had retained the advance payments without establishing any contractual or legal basis for doing so. Boeing, however, disputed the claim and contended that the advance payments had already been adjusted or netted off against its claim against Jet Airways.
Boeing also challenged the maintainability of the liquidator’s application, arguing that the NCLT could not decide a disputed contractual claim through its summary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC. It maintained that its admitted claim had been calculated after accounting for the advance amount paid by Jet Airways.
NCLT Declines Contractual Adjudication
"The dispute between the Parties in the present case certainly revolves around the Purchase Agreements between the Parties unless those Agreements are tested and the claims are crystallised upon the adjudication of dispute between the Parties under the Contract, the proceedings cannot be said to be emerging out of the Insolvency Process, they are independent of the Insolvency Process and the Liquidator has attempted to enforce the Contract without producing that Contract or terms of the Contract and get the refund of the advance paid by filing this Application, which this Tribunal would not be competent to exercise power under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w Rule 11 of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016,” the 39-page order copy reads.
Also Watch:
Holding that the liquidator had attempted to enforce the contract and obtain a refund without producing the contractual terms before the tribunal, the NCLT dismissed the application filed by the liquidator.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
