- 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
Supreme Court Orders SpiceJet to Encash Bank Guarantee, Pay Rs. 270 crore to Kalanithi Maran
Supreme Court Orders SpiceJet to Encash Bank Guarantee, Pay Rs. 270 crore to Kalanithi Maran
The Supreme Court ordered bank guarantee of Rs 270 crore of SpiceJet must be encashed immediately and the money be paid to media baron Kalanithi Maran and his Kal Airways towards dues from the arbitral award of Rs 578 crore.
The three judges' bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala also directed SpiceJet to pay within three months Rs. 75 crore to Mr. Maran and Kal Airways towards the interest component on the arbitral award.
The Apex Court was hearing SpiceJet's appeal against the 2nd November, 2020, order of the Delhi High Court, asking the airline to deposit around Rs. 243 crore as interest in nexus with the share transfer dispute with its former promoter, Maran, and Kal Airways. On 7th November, 2020, the Supreme Court had stayed the high court order asking SpiceJet to deposit around Rs 243 crore as interest in connection with the share transfer dispute.
"We direct that the respondents/decree holder (Maran and Kal Airways) having already received Rs 308 crore out of the arbitral award of Rs 578 crore, the bank guarantee of Rs 270 crore shall be encashed forthwith and the amount shall be paid over to the decree holder...," the bench ordered.
Further, it added that this will ensure that the principal sum due in the award is paid almost in entirety.
The dispute dates back to February, 2015 after Ajay Singh took back control of SpiceJet amid the airline facing a financial crisis. Maran and Kal Airways had transferred their entire 35.04 crore equity shares in SpiceJet, amounting to a 58.46 per cent stake in the airline, to its co-founder Singh in February 2015 for just Rs 2.
The Supreme Court had initially stated that till three months, the execution of award will remain stayed and if SpiceJet made any default in compliance with these directions for payment, the award will become executable. Maran claimed Rs 362 crore in interest dues which was vehemently opposed by SpiceJet.
The Apex Court granted the liberty to SpiceJet to approach the Delhi High Court and urge for a lower interest rate. It prayed before the High Court to make an endeavour to expedite the hearing in the matter.
SpiceJet and its promoter Ajay Singh were asked to deposit around Rs 243 crore as interest payable on Rs 578 crore, which the High Court had in 2017 asked the airline to deposit under the 2018 arbitration award in the share-transfer dispute.
Consequently, the High Court had granted six weeks to SpiceJet to make the payment and the deadline for the same expired on 14th October, 2020. Following which, Maran and his firm had moved to the High Court for attachment of the entire shareholding of Singh in SpiceJet and taking over the management for the non-payment of Rs 243 crore.
Subsequently, the Supreme court had considered SpiceJet's appeal and passed the interim order, imposing a stay on order passed by the High Court.
Maran and Kal Airways preferred before the High Court over the share-transfer dispute with SpiceJet, demanding that 18 crore warrants redeemable as equity shares be transferred to them. Accordingly, the High Court ordered SpiceJet and Singh to deposit Rs 578 crore in the High Court's registry.
SpiceJet was permitted to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs 329 crore and make a cash deposit of the remaining sum crore before the high court. The Apex Court, in July 2017, dismissed SpiceJet's appeal against the high court order.
On July 20, 2018, the arbitral tribunal rejected Maran's claim of damages of Rs 1,323 crore for not issuing the warrants to him and Kal Airways but had awarded him a refund of Rs 578 crore plus interest.