New Delhi, July 23 The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the special leave petitions filed by KAL Airways and businessman Kalanithi Maran seeking damages of more than Rs 1,300 crore from the Ajay Singh-led SpiceJet.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar refused to interfere with an order of the division bench of the Delhi High Court, which had dismissed the appeals filed by KAL Airways and Maran solely on the ground of delay without going into the merits.
Ajay Singh had sold SpiceJet to Maran and then repurchased the airline in January 2015, after the low-cost air carrier had been grounded for a prolonged period due to financial difficulties.
Maran of Sun Network and KAL Airways had transferred their 58.46 per cent stake in SpiceJet to Ajay Singh for a mere Rs 2, along with a Rs 1,500 crore debt liability.
Maran and KAL Airways had claimed to have paid Spicejet Rs 679 crore for issuing warrants and preference shares as part of the agreement.
However, Maran then approached the Delhi High Court in 2017, alleging that SpiceJet had neither issued convertible warrants and preference shares nor returned the money.
The issue was referred to arbitration, where a tribunal comprising three retired apex court judges had rejected Maran's claim for Rs 1,323 crore in damages from Ajay Singh-led SpiceJet.
The tribunal ruled that Maran owed Ajay Singh and the airline Rs. 29 crore in penal interest, while Ajay Singh was asked to reimburse Maran Rs. 579 crore along with interest. It also ruled that there was no violation of the share sale and purchase agreement made between Maran and the current promoter, Ajay Singh.
Both parties challenged the arbitral award before the Delhi High Court. In 2024, a division bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a decision of the single bench upholding the arbitral award and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Following this, Maran and KAL Airways attempted to revive their pending appeal seeking damages exceeding Rs. 1,300 crore, which the Delhi High Court dismissed on grounds of delay — a position now affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor