Jet Airways Boeing Battle

NEW DELHI, November 3, 2026 — An appellate courtroom clash between the court-appointed liquidator of grounded carrier Jet Airways (India) Limited and American aerospace manufacturer The Boeing Company has revived intense scrutiny over the recovery prospects of hundreds of crores in unresolved passenger ticket refunds held by Indian travel agencies. The matter, scheduled for admission before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in New Delhi, underscores a fundamental legal divide in corporate insolvency: the distinction between recovering commercial assets for an insolvent company's estate and securing an actual cash distribution for junior operational creditors. While headlines surrounding manufacturer claims generate renewed hope among ticketing agents and passengers, the rigid statutory distribution hierarchy established under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, dictates that unsecured travel refund claims occupy a subordinate position that leaves ultimate repayment fraught with financial uncertainty.

[!NOTE] Key Legal and Operational Summary of the NCLAT Appeal & Refund Status: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi has listed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2101 of 2026, filed by Jet Airways liquidator Satish Kumar Gupta against The Boeing Company, before Court IV for admission. The litigation stems from historical commercial disputes concerning aircraft purchase agreements and pre-delivery payments. Legal experts emphasize that an appellate listing or prospective asset recovery does not equate to an approved creditor distribution. Under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, operational creditors—including travel agents and ticket-holding passengers—are positioned in Category 6, ranking behind liquidation costs, secured lenders, and employee wage entitlements.

JET AIRWAYS LIQUIDATION & BOEING LITIGATION ARCHITECTURE

Column 1
[ APPELLATE LITIGATION: NCLAT NEW DELHI (COURT IV) ]
* Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2101 of 2026.
* Parties: Satish Kumar Gupta (Liquidator, Jet Airways) vs. The Boeing Company.
* Bench: Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Judicial) & Naresh Salecha (Technical).
* Nature: Commercial claim regarding pre-delivery payments (PDPs) & 737 MAX purchase contracts.
[ INFLUX PATHWAY: THE COMMON LIQUIDATION ESTATE ]
* Any potential judgment or settlement flows exclusively into the debtor's general asset pool.
* No funds are earmarked or ring-fenced for specific travel agents or ticket holders.
[ OUTFLOW GATEWAY: SECTION 53 IBC STATUTORY WATERFALL ]
* Tier 1: CIRP & Liquidation Administrative Expenses (Priority settlement).
* Tier 2: Workmen Dues (24 months) & Relinquished Secured Financial Debt (Pari Passu).
* Tier 3: Non-Workman Employee Dues (12 months).
* Tier 4: Unsecured Financial Lenders (Bank Consortium).
* Tier 5: Government Statutory Taxes (2-year cap) & Remaining Secured Claims.
* Tier 6: OPERATIONAL CREDITORS (Travel Agencies, Vendors, Fuel Suppliers, & Ticket Refunds).

Inside the NCLAT Proceedings: The Anatomy of the Boeing Appeal

The listing of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2101 of 2026 before Court IV of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi marks another chapter in the protracted unwinding of what was once India's premier international carrier. Initiated by the court-appointed liquidator, Satish Kumar Gupta, against aerospace titan The Boeing Company, the appeal was scheduled as a fresh matter for admission before a two-member bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha.

The underlying legal dispute traces its origins to the extensive fleet modernization commitments entered into by Jet Airways prior to its operational grounding in April 2019. Under previous management, the carrier placed firm orders for 225 Boeing 737 MAX narrowbody aircraft, a multibillion-dollar procurement strategy designed to anchor the airline's domestic and short-haul international expansion. As part of these aircraft acquisition agreements, Jet Airways transferred substantial capital to Boeing in the form of advance pre-delivery payments (PDPs) and contractual option deposits. Following the airline's financial collapse, the subsequent grounding of the global 737 MAX fleet, and the eventual initiation of insolvency proceedings, these capital deposits became deeply entangled in contested contractual termination clauses, counterclaims over cancellation damages, and aircraft delivery defaults.

For industry observers and insolvency practitioners, understanding the precise procedural posture of the NCLAT listing is essential. The publication of a case on the tribunal's supplementary cause list confirms that a hearing was scheduled to consider the preliminary admission of the appeal. It does not signify that the appellate tribunal has evaluated the substantive merits of the claim, issued a final decree against Boeing, or secured any monetary compensation for the airline's estate. In commercial litigation of this magnitude, cross-border corporate disputes frequently encounter extensive jurisdictional challenges, complex international arbitration clauses, and multi-year legal proceedings.

The critical distinction that travel businesses and consumers must recognize is that litigation initiated by a liquidator is conducted solely on behalf of the corporate debtor's collective estate. If the liquidator ultimately succeeds in securing a cash recovery, damages award, or negotiated settlement from Boeing, that capital does not bypass established insolvency statutes to pay individual travel agents or stranded ticket holders. Instead, the proceeds are deposited directly into the general liquidation bank account, where they become subject to the mandatory statutory distribution rules that govern all asset realizations under Indian corporate law.

The jurisdictional complexity of the dispute is compounded by the cross-border nature of commercial aviation contracts. Major commercial aircraft purchase agreements between international carriers and aerospace manufacturers typically incorporate specialized dispute resolution clauses governed by English commercial law or the laws of the State of New York, frequently designating international arbitration forums seated in London, Singapore, or Paris. Because India has not yet formally enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency into the IBC framework, coordinating domestic corporate insolvency proceedings with foreign arbitration covenants presents formidable procedural hurdles. For liquidator Satish Kumar Gupta, litigating or negotiating against Boeing before Indian appellate benches requires balancing domestic statutory recovery mandates with international contract enforcement realities, a process that inevitably involves extensive legal deliberations before any asset recovery can materialize.

The Operational Creditor Register: Travel Trade Claims in Black and White

The direct financial connection between the Jet Airways liquidation process and the Indian travel industry is systematically documented in the airline's official operational creditor register. Maintained and published by the liquidator pursuant to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, Annexure 6 of the register catalogues thousands of claims filed by trade suppliers, ground handling companies, fuel distributors, and travel agencies across India and international markets.

JET AIRWAYS OPERATIONAL CREDITOR REGISTER (ANNEXURE 6 SAMPLE)

Entity / Facility	Delays	Cancellations	Details
Travel Business Entity	Amount Claimed (INR)	Amount Admitted (INR)	Discrepancy
:---	:---	:---	:---
Travel Dynamics India Pvt Ltd	₹1,41,846	₹1,41,846	₹0 (100%)
Travel Masters (Mumbai) Pvt Ltd	₹1,48,100	₹1,48,100	₹0 (100%)
Travair Connections Ltd	₹8,54,803	₹1,83,200	-₹6,71,603
Travel Consol Ltd	₹19,80,451	₹2,80,339	-₹17,00,112
Travel Spirit International Pvt Ltd	₹1,63,706	₹27,314	-₹1,36,392

A forensic examination of the published register reveals glaring disparities between the gross amounts claimed by travel businesses and the sums formally admitted by the liquidator. While boutique corporate agencies like Travel Dynamics India Pvt Ltd and Travel Masters (Mumbai) Pvt Ltd had their claims admitted in full at ₹1,41,846 and ₹1,48,100 respectively, larger ticketing consolidators experienced severe downward adjustments. Travair Connections Ltd submitted claims totaling ₹8,54,803, yet the liquidator admitted only ₹1,83,200, pruning more than ₹6.7 lakh from the recognized debt. Even more dramatically, Travel Consol Ltd lodged a substantial claim of ₹19,80,451, of which a meager ₹2,80,339 was admitted, leaving over ₹17 lakh unacknowledged. Similarly, Travel Spirit International saw its ₹1,63,706 claim reduced to just ₹27,314.

These substantial discrepancies highlight the rigorous, evidentiary nature of the claim verification process under Regulation 13 of the IBBI Liquidation Regulations. Liquidators are statutory fiduciaries bound by law to demand strict proof of debt. In the travel sector, claims often fell short during verification due to incomplete passenger name record (PNR) audit trails, missing IATA Billing and Settlement Plan (BSP) invoices, unverified credit shells, or duplicate filings where both the ticketing agency and the individual corporate client claimed the identical ticket value.

Most importantly, travel agencies must avoid the dangerous commercial error of equating claim admission with financial recovery. The formal admission of a claim represents nothing more than an administrative acknowledgment that a valid debt exists within the liquidation framework. It establishes the creditor's proportional share of any potential dividend that might eventually be declared for that specific class of debt. Admission does not convert an unliquidated receivable into cash in hand, nor does it grant the agency any legal entitlement to demand immediate liquidity from the insolvency authorities.

The administrative mechanics of the IATA Billing and Settlement Plan (BSP) further illustrate why travel agencies struggled to satisfy the liquidator's evidentiary demands. Under standard global distribution system (GDS) practices, ticketing agencies utilize computerized platforms like Sabre, Amadeus, or Travelport to issue electronic tickets, generating automated Agency Debit Memos (ADMs) and Agency Credit Memos (ACMs) to reconcile booking adjustments. When Jet Airways abruptly ceased flight operations in April 2019, access to the airline's internal reservation database was severed, leaving travel agencies holding unutilized electronic coupons without matching bank clearance acknowledgments. When the liquidator initiated forensic audits under Regulation 13, agencies that submitted summary account statements without original GDS electronic coupon audits or verified banking transaction logs saw their claim values substantially pruned or rejected outright.

The Section 53 Waterfall: Why Ticket Refunds Rank in Category 6

To understand why travel agencies and passengers face an uphill battle to recover ticket funds, one must examine the bedrock statutory mechanism governing corporate liquidations in India: Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Often referred to as the 'waterfall mechanism,' Section 53 establishes an immutable, non-negotiable order of payment priority that dictates exactly how the proceeds from the sale of liquidation assets must be distributed.

THE SECTION 53 IBC STATUTORY PAYMENT WATERFALL

Column 1
[ TIER 1: LIQUIDATION & RESOLUTION COSTS ] (ABSOLUTE STATUTORY PRIORITY)
* Court administrative expenses, liquidator fees, legal retainers, asset security, & valuations.
[ TIER 2: WORKMEN DUES & SECURED CREDITORS ] (EQUAL PARI PASSU DISTRIBUTION)
* Workmen wages for 24 months preceding liquidation date.
* Debts owed to secured financial lenders who voluntarily relinquished their asset security.
[ TIER 3: NON-WORKMAN EMPLOYEE SALARIES ]
* Unpaid wages and salaries owed to other corporate employees for the preceding 12 months.
[ TIER 4: UNSECURED FINANCIAL DEBT ]
* Financial debts owed to unsecured lenders, institutional bondholders, & bank consortiums.
[ TIER 5: GOVERNMENT TAXES & REMAINING SECURED DEBTS ]
* Central & State government taxes, municipal levies, & airport authority fees (2-year limit).
* Any unpaid balances owed to secured creditors following asset realization.
[ TIER 6: OPERATIONAL DEBTS (TRAVEL AGENTS & TICKET REFUNDS) ]
* Unsecured trade payables, aircraft maintenance providers, catering vendors, & TICKET REFUNDS.
[ TIER 7 & 8: SHAREHOLDERS ]
* Preference shareholders followed by remaining equity capital holders.

The statutory architecture of Section 53 is unforgivingly linear. Each tier of the waterfall must be satisfied in full before a single rupee can trickle down to the subsequent category. At the apex sits Tier 1: the costs of the corporate insolvency resolution process and liquidation administrative expenses, ensuring that legal professionals, asset caretakers, and court-appointed trustees are compensated for running the process.

Tier 2 encompasses two co-equal claims that share proceeds on a pari passu basis: workmen's dues for the twenty-four months preceding the liquidation commencement date, and debts owed to secured financial creditors who have voluntarily relinquished their specific security interests to the common asset pool. Given that Jet Airways accumulated billions of rupees in bank borrowings backed by aircraft charges, airport landing slots, and corporate assets, the debt burden residing in Tier 2 alone numbers in the thousands of crores.

Tiers 3, 4, and 5 prioritize non-workman employee salaries, unsecured financial loans held by banking consortiums, and statutory government taxes payable to central and state revenue authorities. Only after all these superior obligations are discharged completely does the liquidation distribution reach Tier 6, officially classified by the liquidator as Category 6: remaining debts and dues, which explicitly encompasses operational creditors.

In the case of Jet Airways, passenger ticket refund claims and travel agency accounts are legally categorized as unsecured operational debt under Category 6. In large-scale corporate liquidations where an airline's tangible assets consist primarily of depreciated ground equipment, aging spare engines, and disputed intellectual property, the total realization generated from asset auctions rarely covers the colossal claims of secured banks in Tier 2. Consequently, the practical likelihood of sufficient liquidity surviving through Tier 5 to provide a meaningful dividend to Category 6 operational creditors is exceptionally remote.

This structural disadvantage is not unique to Indian corporate insolvency; it mirrors the international legal treatment of airline bankruptcies across global jurisdictions. In landmark aviation collapses such as Kingfisher Airlines and Go First in India, Thomas Cook and Monarch Airlines in the United Kingdom, and Pan American World Airways in the United States, unsecured ticket holders and retail travel intermediaries have consistently occupied the bottom tiers of creditor priority. In the absence of specialized statutory trusts or government-mandated travel guarantee funds, general liquidation dividends distributed to operational creditors rarely exceed a fraction of a single percent of admitted claims. For Indian travel agencies holding recognized Category 6 claims in the Jet Airways liquidation, historical bankruptcy precedents offer a sobering financial reality check regarding the likelihood of meaningful capital recovery.

Agency vs. Customer: The Legal Dilemma of Inflight Refunds

The paralysis surrounding Jet Airways' ticket refunds has created profound legal and commercial friction between travel agencies and their corporate and retail clients. In the typical lifecycle of an air travel booking, the travel agency acts as an intermediary, collecting ticket fares from the passenger and remitting those funds to the operating carrier via the centralized IATA Billing and Settlement Plan. When an airline suddenly collapses, this commercial arrangement fractures, leaving both the intermediary and the consumer trapped in an unresolved financial impasse.

TRIPARTITE FINANCIAL RECONCILIATION & LIABILITY FLOW

Column 1
[ 1. RETAIL CUSTOMER / CORPORATE PASSENGER ]
* Paid 100% of ticket fare to travel agent via credit card or bank transfer.
* Demands immediate reimbursement or chargeback under consumer protection statutes.
[ 2. TRAVEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY / TICKETING AGENT ]
* Remitted ticket funds to Jet Airways via IATA BSP prior to flight suspension.
* Holds an admitted operational claim in Annexure 6 of the liquidation register.
* Faces acute legal risk of double loss: unrecovered airline receivable + customer refund debt.
[ 3. JET AIRWAYS LIQUIDATION ESTATE ]
* Holds collected customer revenues within general corporate accounts.
* Relegates all refund distributions to Category 6 of the Section 53 IBC statutory waterfall.

For travel management companies reviewing their exposure, sound financial accounting demands the strict separation of three distinct financial figures: the original gross booking revenue received from the traveler, the admitted claim balance recognized by the liquidator, and the actual cash dividend, if any, ultimately disbursed by the insolvency court. Conflating these three figures creates serious accounting distortions and exposes agencies to severe legal liabilities.

From a contractual standpoint, travel agencies frequently argue that they acted merely as an agent for a disclosed principal under Sections 182 through 238 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Under established commercial common law, an agent who contracts on behalf of a named principal is generally not personally liable for the principal's breach or insolvency, provided the agent remitted the customer's funds in good faith. However, consumer forums across India have taken conflicting stances. Many District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, operating under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, have held travel agencies jointly liable for deficient service, ordering them to refund retail customers directly regardless of whether the airline disbursed funds back to the agency.

This conflicting jurisprudence places Indian travel businesses in double jeopardy: their working capital remains indefinitely locked inside Jet Airways' liquidation register under Category 6, while local courts may simultaneously compel them to reimburse angry passengers from their own cash reserves. In 2020, the Supreme Court of India addressed airline ticket refund mechanics during the pandemic in the landmark ruling Pravasi Legal Cell & Ors. v. Union of India, mandating full refunds and structured credit shells for flights disrupted by government-imposed lockdowns. However, legal scholars emphasize that the Pravasi Legal Cell precedent applied strictly to active, solvent airlines operating under Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) regulatory directives; it does not supersede the statutory insolvency regime established under the IBC for a liquidated corporate entity.

Strategic Realities for India's Travel Trade: Mitigating Future Insolvency Risks

The enduring fallout from the Jet Airways saga provides profound operational lessons for India's travel and tourism ecosystem. The airline's grounding and subsequent multi-year insolvency have demonstrated that the traditional commercial architecture governing air ticketing exposes travel agencies to unhedged credit risk on an enormous scale.

Under the standard IATA Billing and Settlement Plan, travel agencies remit ticket revenues to airlines on fixed weekly or bi-monthly billing cycles, long before the scheduled passenger journey actually occurs. When an airline experiences progressive financial distress, an operational grounding can strand hundreds of crores in unfulfilled forward bookings. Because the Indian aviation sector lacks a statutory passenger protection fund or an airline default insurance framework—such as the Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (ATOL) scheme in the United Kingdom—travel agents and consumers bear the entire burden of carrier failure without a safety net.

To protect their long-term solvency, forward-thinking travel management companies and online travel agencies are overhauling their operational risk protocols. Agencies are increasingly implementing internal exposure caps on financially vulnerable carriers, monitoring airline credit health through publicly available balance sheets and aircraft repossession notices. In corporate travel management, corporate contracts are being rewritten with explicit disclaimer clauses clarifying that ticket remittances are non-refundable by the agency in the event of airline insolvency or grounding, directing corporate clients to file direct claims with insolvency liquidators.

For agencies and individual travelers holding active claims against Jet Airways, transparency and grounded expectations are vital. News of appellate proceedings before the NCLAT, litigation against Boeing, or court-mandated auctions of vintage aircraft components should not be interpreted as an impending refund breakthrough. Travel businesses must communicate clearly with their clientele, distinguishing between ongoing legal recovery efforts by the liquidator and actual statutory dividend declarations. Until the liquidator formally petitions the NCLT for permission to disburse funds to Category 6 operational creditors, any assumption of impending cash repayment remains unsupported by the legal realities of Indian insolvency law.

The enduring vulnerability of travel agencies has catalyzed urgent industry calls for structural regulatory reform across the Indian aviation sector. Industry bodies such as the Travel Agents Association of India (TAAI) and the Travel Agents Federation of India (TAFI) have repeatedly petitioned the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation to institute mandatory financial safeguards, including an Airline Passenger Protection Fund or dedicated escrow mechanisms for forward ticket sales. Under such proposed frameworks, airlines would be prohibited from treating advance ticket collections as unencumbered working capital, requiring customer revenues to be held in trust until the underlying flight is operated successfully. Establishing statutory escrow accounts would insulate travel intermediaries and traveling consumers from the severe financial losses witnessed during the collapses of Kingfisher Airlines, Jet Airways, and Go First, ensuring that future airline insolvencies do not paralyze India's travel distribution network.

Comprehensive Liquidation and Refund Verification Matrix

The following analytical matrix summarizes the legal mechanisms, statutory priorities, and practical realities governing creditor claims in the Jet Airways liquidation process:

Creditor Category	Statutory IBC Tier	Claim Verification Benchmark	Recovery Expectation	Actionable Next Step
Liquidation Administration	Tier 1 (Absolute Priority)	Court orders and statutory fee approvals	100% recovery from common asset realizations	Liquidator draws fees directly from asset auction proceeds.
Workmen Dues (24 Months)	Tier 2 (Pari Passu with Secured)	Certified payroll records and provident fund audits	Partial to moderate recovery based on asset sales	Monitor official stakeholder updates on jetairways.com.
Secured Financial Lenders	Tier 2 (Pari Passu with Workmen)	Registered bank mortgages, aircraft charges, & liens	Major share of realized funds; substantial haircuts	Lead lenders (SBI consortium) manage committee votes.
Unsecured Financial Debt	Tier 4 (Subordinated Financial)	Unsecured debentures, inter-corporate loans	Minimal recovery; dependent on major litigation windfalls	Participate through financial creditor consultative meetings.
Government Statutory Dues	Tier 5 (Crown Debts)	Central excise, GST, and municipal tax assessments	Strictly capped at 2 years preceding liquidation date	Revenue departments submit statutory recovery certificates.
Travel Agencies & Agents	Tier 6 (Operational Creditors)	Annexure 6 registration, verified PNRs, & BSP records	Extremely low to negligible under Section 53 waterfall	Track admitted claim balance; do not disburse premature refunds.
Individual Passengers	Tier 6 (Operational Creditors)	Ticket receipts, bank statements, unutilized PNRs	Extremely low; sub-tier operational categorization	Verify whether claim was submitted directly or via agent.

Procedural Guidance for Travel Agencies and Affected Ticket Holders

Travel trade operators and individual ticket holders navigating the aftermath of the Jet Airways liquidation should adhere to several established administrative and financial protocols:

Audit Claim Registrations on Official Portals: Claimants should visit the official liquidation portal hosted at jetairways.com to verify their status in the published operational creditor lists (specifically Annexure 6). Agencies must verify that their corporate legal name, permanent account number (PAN), and admitted claim figures match internal accounting ledgers.
Maintain Separate Accounting Ledger Accounts: Travel agencies should segregate unrecovered Jet Airways ticket balances into a dedicated 'Doubtful Operational Receivables' account. Recognizing admitted liquidation claims as standard trade receivables can distort balance sheets and create inaccurate tax liabilities. Consult statutory auditors regarding the timing of bad debt write-offs under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Clarify Customer Communication Protocols: When fielding inquiries from retail passengers regarding historical bookings, agencies must provide written documentation confirming the exact status of the booking. Provide the customer with the original ticket number, PNR, proof of BSP remittance to the carrier, and evidence of the claim filed with the liquidator, clearly explaining that payment distributions are governed exclusively by Section 53 of the IBC.
Understand Condonation of Delay Rules under Section 42: Creditors whose claims were previously rejected or pruned by the liquidator during verification cannot simply submit new paperwork to the liquidator's office. Under Section 42 of the IBC, an appeal against the liquidator's decision to reject or modify a claim must be filed before the National Company Law Tribunal within fourteen days of receipt of the decision, requiring a formal application for condonation of delay supported by compelling legal justification.
Treat Boeing Litigation as Estate Asset Building: Maintain a realistic legal perspective regarding appellate proceedings before the NCLAT. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2101 of 2026 represents an effort to realize contractual assets for the debtor's estate. It does not establish an escrow fund, a settlement trust, or an expedited refund mechanism for travel industry operational creditors.

Frequently Asked Questions About Jet Airways Liquidation and Ticket Refunds

Does the NCLAT Boeing appeal mean passengers and travel agents will receive refunds?

No. The listing of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2101 of 2026 before the NCLAT is a procedural matter concerning the admission of commercial claims brought by the liquidator against The Boeing Company. Any potential financial recovery from this litigation would flow into the common liquidation estate and be distributed strictly according to the Section 53 IBC priority waterfall.

Where can travel agencies verify their admitted claim amounts?

Travel agencies can verify their recognized claim balances by reviewing the published operational creditor registers (specifically Annexure 6: Other Operational Creditors) hosted on the official Jet Airways liquidation website at jetairways.com/liquidationproceedings.

Why is the admitted claim amount often lower than the amount claimed by an agency?

Discrepancies occur during the liquidator's verification process under Regulation 13 of the IBBI Liquidation Regulations. Claims are frequently pruned due to incomplete PNR records, lack of supporting IATA BSP remittance invoices, expired credit shells, or duplicate filings submitted independently by corporate end-users.

Where do ticket refund claims rank in the liquidation payment hierarchy?

Under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ticket refund claims and travel agency payables are classified as unsecured operational debts residing in Category 6. They rank far below liquidation costs, secured bank borrowings, workmen entitlements, and statutory government dues.

Can a travel agency or passenger still file a fresh claim for a ticket refund?

The statutory window for submitting claims to the liquidator closed several years ago following the liquidation order. Any fresh claim or appeal against a rejected claim requires formal judicial condonation of delay from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 42 of the IBC, which is granted only under exceptional legal circumstances.

Jet Airways vs. Boeing NCLAT Battle: Why Manufacturer Litigation Offers No Quick Ticket Refunds for Indian Travel Agents