In a significant development in the Go First insolvency case, the Ernakulam Police have registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the entire former board of directors of the now-defunct Go First airline, an unnamed official of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), online travel booking platforms EaseMyTrip and Cleartrip, and the airline’s Resolution Professional over allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust related to post-insolvency ticket sales.
The FIR, registered on July 9 under Sections 406, 415 and 420 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), follows directions issued earlier this month by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Ernakulam on a complaint filed by aviation safety activist and advocate Yeshwant Shenoy, who claimed that the accused conspired to continue selling airline tickets despite knowing that Go First had already initiated the process of voluntary insolvency.
According to the complaint, Go First’s board resolved on April 28, 2023, to initiate insolvency proceedings, obtained shareholder approval during an Extraordinary General Meeting on April 30, and formally approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on May 2, 2023. Despite these developments, the airline allegedly continued accepting bookings until May 10, allowing passengers to purchase tickets for flights that were ultimately cancelled.
Among those named in the FIR are former chairman Nusli Neville Wadia, director Ness Nusli Wadia, former Chief Executive Officer Kaushik Khona, all other directors who served on the board at the relevant time, an unidentified DGCA official, online travel platforms EaseMyTrip and Cleartrip, and Resolution Professional Shailendra Ajmera.
The complainant alleged that he personally suffered a loss of ₹64,000 after booking Kochi-Mumbai tickets for his family and friends on the very day the airline filed its insolvency application. He further claimed that despite repeatedly informing the DGCA about the continued sale of tickets, the regulator directed the airline to stop advance bookings only on May 10, after intervention by the Kerala High Court.
The complaint also alleges that the DGCA failed to act despite being aware of the airline’s financial position and departure from earlier regulatory practice. It cited the example of SpiceJet, where the aviation regulator had restricted advance ticket bookings in 2014 during the airline’s financial crisis to safeguard passenger interests.
Shenoy has further alleged that the airline substantially understated the financial impact on passengers. While Go First had reportedly stated that 4,118 flights were cancelled during April 2023, affecting approximately 77,500 passengers, with media reports estimating passenger dues at around ₹900 crore, the complainant contended that the actual collections could have reached nearly ₹2,000 crore because ticket sales allegedly continued for several more days without regulatory intervention.
The FIR accuses the named parties of causing wrongful financial loss to passengers while allegedly enabling wrongful gains through continued ticket sales despite knowledge of the airline’s impending operational shutdown. The investigation is expected to examine board resolutions, regulatory communications, booking records, payment transactions and the timeline of decisions taken by the airline, aviation regulator and booking platforms.
Renowned cybercrime expert and former IPS officer Prof. Triveni Singh said that although the matter primarily concerns alleged corporate and financial fraud, digital booking platforms handling advance consumer payments must ensure stronger compliance, transparent disclosure and timely suspension of services whenever insolvency or operational risks become known. He noted that robust regulatory oversight, real-time coordination among regulators, service providers and financial institutions, and prompt consumer alerts are essential to prevent large-scale financial losses and strengthen public confidence in digital commerce.
The case remains under investigation, and the allegations contained in the FIR are yet to be tested before the court. No findings of guilt have been recorded against any of the accused at this stage.
