- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC orders SpiceJet to deposit Rs. 243 crore over share transfer dispute
The Delhi High Court on 7 September directed air carrier SpiceJet Ltd to deposit Rs. 243 crore with the its registrar general within six weeks, in connection with the share transfer dispute with its former owner Kalanithi Maran and his firm KAL Airways. The case relates to the dispute arising out of non-issuance of warrants in favour of KAL Airways's Non-Executive Chairperson Kalanithi...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi High Court on 7 September directed air carrier SpiceJet Ltd to deposit Rs. 243 crore with the its registrar general within six weeks, in connection with the share transfer dispute with its former owner Kalanithi Maran and his firm KAL Airways.
The case relates to the dispute arising out of non-issuance of warrants in favour of KAL Airways's Non-Executive Chairperson Kalanithi Maran, after the ownership of the airline was transferred to Ajay Singh who is the current controlling shareholder of SpiceJet.
The Court said that a failure to comply with the order would allow Kalanithi Maran to approach the Court to seek status quo on the company's shareholding.
The actual amount sought by the Delhi High Court is more than Rs. 579 crore, which has been already deposited by SpiceJet's current promoter Ajay Singh.
There was a change in ownership of the airline, after Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways transferred their entire stake of 58.46% in SpiceJet amounting to 350.4 million shares to its co-founder Ajay Singh in February 2015.
Under the share purchase agreement, KAL Airways and Maran were to receive redeemable warrants in return for the Rs. 690 crore they spent on SpiceJet towards operating costs and debt payments. The carrier failed to issue the warrants.
In July 2017, Delhi High Court had directed SpiceJet to deposit Rs. 579 crore in five equal monthly instalments with the court registry. The Court also asked KAL Airways and SpiceJet to set up an arbitral tribunal to resolve the issue. SpiceJet had appealed against this order in the Supreme Court which was rejected.