Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Aircraft Rules, 1937

9 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

EX. ARMYMEN'S PROTECTION SERVICES P. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2014 INSC 14326 February 2014Disposed off

The appellant, a ground handling service provider, had been granted a five‑year security clearance in 2007 but it was withdrawn in 2008 on grounds of national security. The appellant challenged the withdrawal, seeking a post‑decisional hearing and disclosure of the material relied upon, but the High Court set aside the

STATE OF JHARKHANDversusDR. NISHKANT DUBEY & ORS.

2025 INSC 9421 January 2025Dismissed

The State of Jharkhand filed an FIR alleging that Dr. Nishkant Dubey and others forcibly entered the Air Traffic Control (ATC) room at Deoghar Airport, exerted pressure on officials, and caused an unsafe take‑off, invoking Sections 336, 447 and 448 of the IPC and Sections 10 and 11A of the Aircraft Act. The High Court

CENTRAL GST DELHI - IIIversusDELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

2023 INSC 57219 May 2023Dismissed

The Central GST Delhi‑III (the revenue) appealed against Delhi International Airport Ltd., contending that the User Development Fee (UDF) collected from passengers under Section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, was a taxable service liable to service tax. The Court examined the nature of the fee, the s

JEEJA GHOSH & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 41212 May 2016Case Allowed

Jeeja Ghosh, a person with cerebral palsy, was forcibly de‑boarded from a SpiceJet flight on 19 February 2012 despite having requested assistance only for her baggage. She alleged that the airline’s action violated the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, the Aircraft Rules, 1937, Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) 2008

BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusPRIYA PAUL & ANR.

2020 INSC 1487 February 2020Dismissed

The appellant insurer denied a claim for the death of a passenger who was on a motorised glider sightseeing flight, arguing that the glider was not a standard aircraft and the passenger was not a fare‑paying traveller in a regular airline or charter. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the gli

M/S INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.versusN. SATCHIDANAND

2011 INSC 4254 July 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a claim by a passenger against Indigo Airlines for compensation due to a prolonged flight delay, alleged deficiency in service, and alleged illegal detention at Hyderabad airport. The Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat in Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute despite the a

PRAVASI LEGAL CELL & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 5751 October 2020Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a batch of public interest writ petitions filed by passenger groups, travel agents and others seeking full refunds of air‑fares for tickets cancelled due to the COVID‑19 lockdown and the ban on domestic and international flights. The Ministry of Civil Aviation had issued an Office Memorandum on

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search