The Bombay High Court issued a ruling on Wednesday, allowing Akasa Air to continue its legal action in Mumbai against five pilots who had unexpectedly left the company. The airline is seeking compensation for breach of contract from these pilots.

A lawsuit was initiated against six pilots, alleging that they had resigned from the company without fulfilling the required six-month notice period.

Among the six pilots, one of them lived in Mumbai and did not raise any objections regarding the jurisdiction for filing the suit in Mumbai. However, the other five pilots, who did not reside in Mumbai, objected to the suit being conducted in Mumbai. Consequently, the airline company requested the Court's permission under clause XII of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules to proceed with its civil suit in the High Court against the five pilots who lived outside Mumbai.

Justice SM Modak granted approval to Akasa's request on this matter today.

The primary lawsuit filed by the airline company through Tri Legal is seeking compensation of ₹21 crores from each of the pilots.

The plea alleges that these pilots left the company without adhering to the required 6-month notice period. As a result, it requests a court order requiring the pilots to pay ₹18 lakh for breaching their contracts and ₹21 crores each in compensation for damaging the airline's reputation due to flight cancellations, rescheduling, and grounding. Additionally, the airline is seeking an interim directive for the pilots to complete their 6-month notice period.

Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas, representing Akasa Air, presented the argument that the root cause of the dispute stemmed from the pilots' resignations. He asserted that the resignations, which were submitted to the company in Mumbai, were considered invalid because they did not meet the stipulated criteria outlined in the agreement clause. Furthermore, he emphasized that the company had the discretion to decide whether or not to accept these resignations.

However, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, representing the pilots, put forth the argument that there was no requirement for the company's acceptance of the pilots' resignations since there were no restrictions preventing them from resigning. He further explained that the location from which the resignations were sent should be considered as the place where the alleged "breach of contract" took place. In spirit of that, he contended that this location would be where the cause of action in the case originated. Since, according to his argument, the cause of action did not arise in Mumbai, the lawsuit should not have been filed there.

Dwarkadas raised the issue that there was a dispute regarding the location where the agreement with the pilots was executed. Akasa maintained that it was executed in Mumbai, while the pilots argued it occurred outside Mumbai. In light of this uncertainty, he requested that the Court allow Akasa to move forward with the lawsuit, and subsequently, the jurisdiction could be determined based on the pleadings and evidence presented during the course of the suit.

The Court has accepted Akasa's argument regarding jurisdiction. The case will now proceed to be heard on its merits in the upcoming days.