Delhi High Court Denies SpiceJet More Time To Deposit ₹144.51 Crore Interest In Dispute With Kalanithi Maran

The Delhi High Court has recently refused to grant SpiceJet Limited more time until December 2026 to deposit ₹144.51 crore towards outstanding interest under an arbitral award in its dispute with Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways,

The Court rejected the airline's request to furnish title documents of its Gurugram property as security instead.

Justice Vinod Kumar dismissed SpiceJet's application, observing that although the Gurugram property was now unencumbered, the airline's failure to deposit the initial ₹50 crore within 45 days prevented the Court from considering its title deeds as security for the remaining ₹94.51 crore to be deposited by December 2026.

"Though at that time, the property was under mortgage and now it is unencumbered, this Court is more concerned about Petitioner's own undertaking to deposit Rs.50 crores within 45 days. Had Petitioner deposited Rs.50 crores, this Court could have entertained the plea of depositing the documents pertaining the property at Plot No. 114, Udyog Vihar, Phase 1, Gurgaon as security with the Registry of this Court for permitting the amount of INR 94,51,69,887 to be deposited by December 2026. However, as the Petitioner has not deposited Rs.50 crores as per his undertaking, I am not inclined to accept the documents of property as a security. Application is accordingly dismissed."

The dispute arose from a January 2015 Share Sale and Purchase Agreement under which Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways transferred their 58.46% stake in SpiceJet to Ajay Singh for ₹2, alongside commitments for financial support of about ₹450 crore. Disputes over warrants and preference shares led to a July 20, 2018 arbitral award directing SpiceJet and Singh to pay over ₹308 crore with interest to Maran and Kal Airways.

On July 13, 2026, SpiceJet undertook to deposit ₹50 crore within 45 days and the remaining ₹94.51 crore within 90 days towards the outstanding interest. It failed to deposit the first instalment, citing non-disbursement of a ₹349 crore tranche under the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS).

On May 19, 2026, the Supreme Court permitted the airline to approach the High Court in view of developments concerning ECLGS. Earlier, on May 4, 2026, the High Court had refused to modify its March 18, 2026 order directing a cash deposit of ₹144.51 crore instead of accepting the title deeds of its Gurugram property as security, and declined to grant further time for compliance.

The Court acknowledged that SpiceJet was facing severe financial constraints but observed that the interests of the respondent company also required protection. It noted that the airline had already obtained several extensions to deposit the amount.

The Court however observed that SpiceJet had admittedly not deposited ₹50 crore in accordance with its undertaking. It held that repeated extensions could not be granted, particularly when the airline had failed to comply with the first instalment of its own commitment.

The request to submit the Gurugram property's original documents had also been rejected by the Court on March 18, 2026.

Although the property was no longer under mortgage, the Court said it was more concerned with SpiceJet's failure to honour its undertaking to deposit ₹50 crore within 45 days.

The Court observed that it could have taken a lenient view regarding the timeline for the second instalment of ₹94.51 crore, permitting its deposit by December 2026 against the property documents as security, had the airline complied with its initial undertaking.

"Admittedly Rs.50 crores have not been deposited. In this situation, repeated extensions cannot be granted. This Court could have taken a lenient view in respect of time limit of second instalment, had the Petitioner complied with their own undertaking of depositing Rs.50 crores with the Registrar General within 45 days. Even this first part of undertaking has not been complied with. So far as submitting original documents of property in Gurugram is concerned, such request has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026."

However, as SpiceJet failed to deposit the first instalment, the Court declined to accept the property documents as security.

For Petitioner: Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Advocates K. R. Sasiprabhu, Yasharth Mishra and Darpan Sachdeva

For Respondent: Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Advocates Mansvini Jain, Nandini Gore, Akash Sharma and Vedant Choudhary