Delhi HC Rejects SpiceJet’s Review Petition Against ₹144 Crore Deposit Order, Imposes ₹50,000 Costs

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, on 04.05.2026, rejected the review petition filed by SpiceJet Airlines and its Managing Director, Ajay Singh, against an order requiring the airline to deposit ₹144 crore in connection with a long-running arbitration dispute with Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd., and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on SpiceJet.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, while dismissing the petition, directed: “Application dismissed with costs of ₹50,000.”

The dispute has its roots in 2015, when Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways, who were the promoters and majority shareholders of SpiceJet holding a 58.46 per cent stake, entered into a Share Sale and Purchase Agreement in January 2015. Under the agreement, Maran and KAL Airways agreed to transfer their entire shareholding to Ajay Singh for a nominal consideration of ₹2. The transaction was coupled with a broader financial support arrangement involving the issuance of warrants and cumulative redeemable preference shares, along with an overall funding commitment of approximately ₹450 crore. Disputes subsequently arose over the performance of reciprocal obligations under the agreement, leading to arbitration.

In July 2018, a three-member arbitral tribunal directed SpiceJet and Ajay Singh to refund ₹308.21 crore to Maran and KAL Airways, along with interest at 12 per cent per annum from November 2015. Both sides filed challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while enforcement proceedings were initiated in parallel.

The enforcement proceedings saw several rounds of litigation before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India. The High Court directed SpiceJet to deposit ₹579 crore in interim proceedings, which was subsequently modified in appeal to permit a ₹329 crore bank guarantee and a ₹250 crore cash deposit. In 2019, ₹250 crore was released to the decree-holders, and a further ₹58.21 crore was paid from the bank guarantee.

In February 2023, the Supreme Court directed the encashment of the bank guarantee and ordered SpiceJet to pay ₹75 crore towards interest within three months, warning that failure to comply would render the award executable in its entirety. In July 2023, the Court refused to grant further time and held that the award had become executable due to non-compliance.

In January 2026, the Delhi High Court dealt with applications filed by SpiceJet and Ajay Singh seeking a stay on the award. The Court noted that the Supreme Court’s directions had not been complied with and recorded that the judgment-debtors had themselves admitted that ₹194.51 crore remained payable towards interest, of which ₹50 crore had already been deposited. Accordingly, the Court directed the deposit of the remaining ₹144.51 crore within six weeks.

SpiceJet subsequently filed a review petition challenging this order. In February 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed a similar plea by SpiceJet and Ajay Singh challenging the direction to deposit ₹144 crore, and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh.

Before the Delhi High Court, SpiceJet filed an application offering property belonging to Ajay Singh for attachment in lieu of the cash deposit. Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Sibal, appearing for SpiceJet and Ajay Singh, submitted that the company was facing financial difficulties and that depositing ₹144 crore would create hardship, citing the ongoing conflict in West Asia and its impact on the airline industry. They further submitted that the Central Government was in the process of granting sovereign credit under the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme to cushion the impact of the West Asia conflict, and that efforts would be made to sell the property offered for attachment.

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for KAL Airways and Kalanithi Maran, countered that the Supreme Court had already rejected similar requests by SpiceJet. He pointed out that the apex court had imposed ₹1 lakh as costs while dismissing SpiceJet’s earlier challenge and submitted that Ajay Singh’s Gurugram property was encumbered with IDFC Bank.

After considering the submissions, the Court refused to entertain SpiceJet’s plea and rejected the review petition with costs of ₹50,000.

Case Details:

• Case Title: SpiceJet v. KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
• Court: Delhi High Court
• Judge: Justice Subramonium Prasad
• Date of Order: 04.05.2026

Appearances:

• For SpiceJet and Ajay Singh: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Sibal with Advocates Sasiprabhu, Yasharth Misra, Darpan Sachdeva, Mohammed Ilyas, Parth Rashik, and Vidhatri Devoli
• For KAL Airways and Kalanithi Maran: Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta with Advocates Nandini Gore (Senior Partner), Sonia Nigam (Associate Partner), Swati Bhardwaj, Akarsh Sharma, Arjun Singh Gautam, and Mansvini Jain from Karanjawala & Co.