- 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
Kalanithi Maran moves Delhi HC after SpiceJet fails to pay Rs. 243 crore
Kalanithi Maran moves Delhi HC after SpiceJet fails to pay Rs. 243 croreSun Group Chairman Kalanithi Maran has moved the Delhi High Court seeking attachment of SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh's shareholding after the airline failed to deposit Rs. 243 crore in favour of Maran.The Delhi High Court on 7 September had directed air carrier SpiceJet Ltd. to deposit Rs. 243 crore with the its...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Kalanithi Maran moves Delhi HC after SpiceJet fails to pay Rs. 243 crore
Sun Group Chairman Kalanithi Maran has moved the Delhi High Court seeking attachment of SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh's shareholding after the airline failed to deposit Rs. 243 crore in favour of Maran.
The Delhi High Court on 7 September had 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 deadline expired on October 14.
The High Court has agreed to hear Maran, and has issued notice to SpiceJet on the plea seeking status quo of the shareholding.
According to SL Narayanan, Group CFO, Sun Group, they approached the High Court since Spicejet has not complied with the direction to deposit the sum of Rs. 243 crore which the Sun Group was entitled to on account of interest on the amount awarded by the arbitration panel. The Group has sought attachment of the Promoter Ajay Singh's shares to protect its interest.
SpiceJet on the other hand has moved the Supreme Court against the High Court order on the payment.
Singh and his family hold 59.93% in SpiceJet as on June 30. He owned around 2% before Maran exited the airline. At the end of trading session on October 22, Singh's stake was valued at Rs. 1,727 crore. The case revolves around the share transfer dispute between the two sides.
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.
In July 2018, an arbitration panel rejected Maran's claim of damages of Rs. 1,323 crore for not issuing warrants to him and KAL Airways, but awarded him a refund of Rs. 579 crore plus interest. SpiceJet was permitted to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 329 crore and make a cash deposit for the remaining sum of Rs. 250 crore.