Delhi High Court Rejects SpiceJet Plea To Substitute ₹144.51 Crore Deposit With Property In Dispute With Kalanithi Maran

Kirit Singhania

23 March 2026 9:48 AM IST

  • Delhi High Court Rejects SpiceJet Plea To Substitute ₹144.51 Crore Deposit With Property In Dispute With Kalanithi Maran

    The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a plea by SpiceJet Ltd. seeking to substitute the court-directed cash deposit of Rs. 144.51 crore with security in the form of a Gurugram property owned by the airline, holding that the request was an abuse of process as similar grounds had already been raised before the Supreme Court and rejected.

    Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the order while dealing with applications seeking modification of directions issued on January 19, 2026, by which the Court had directed SpiceJet to deposit the balance decretal amount arising from an arbitral award in favour of Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd.

    The court noted that SpiceJet had earlier challenged the January 19, 2026, order before the Supreme Court on similar grounds, including financial difficulty, but the special leave petition was dismissed with costs after being termed an abuse of process. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the same arguments could not be repeated in the modification applications.

    On the same line, this Court is constrained to observe that even the instant Applications seeking modification of the Order dated 19.01.2026, are an abuse of the process of law, as the same arguments are being time and again advanced at various forums by the Petitioners/Judgment Debtors. All the questions pleaded in the SLP have been repeated and it cannot be raised again in the High Court,” the Court observed.

    A share sale and purchase agreement was executed on January 29, 2015, under which Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways transferred their 58.46% stake in SpiceJet for a nominal Rs. 2, along with a commitment of Rs. 450 crore financial support. Disputes later arose regarding fulfillment of obligations, leading to arbitration.

    An arbitral award dated July 20, 2018, directed SpiceJet to pay approximately Rs. 308.21 crore along with interest. During enforcement proceedings, the Delhi High Court had earlier released amounts, including Rs. 250 crore, to the decree holders in 2019.

    The Supreme Court, by order dated February 13, 2023, directed encashment of bank guarantees and payment of Rs. 75 crore towards interest, observing that failure to comply would render the award executable. Subsequent non-compliance led to dismissal of SpiceJet's plea for extension on July 7, 2023.

    Thereafter, SpiceJet's special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court's January 19, 2026 order directing deposit of Rs. 144.51 crore was dismissed on February 27, 2026, with the Supreme Court observing that the plea was an abuse of process and imposing costs of Rs. 1 lakh.

    Before the High Court, SpiceJet cited financial constraints and sought permission to furnish security in the form of a property at Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, valued at about Rs. 147.77 crore, instead of depositing the cash amount directed by the Court.

    Rejecting the request, the Court held that once the plea of financial difficulty had already been raised before the Supreme Court and rejected, it could not be permitted to be urged again.

    “Above all, once a plea of financial difficulty is pleaded before the Apex Court, and filing of the SLP against the Order dated 19.01.2026 has itself been observed to be an abuse of the process of law by the Apex Court, now it does not lie in the mouth of the Applicants to raise the very same argument of financial difficulty before this Court,” the Court said.

    The court accordingly dismissed the applications and granted SpiceJet four weeks' time to make arrangements for the deposit of Rs. 144.51 crore with the registry.

    For Decree Holders: Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta with Advocates Nandini Gore, Sonia Nigam, Swati Bhardwaj, Akarsh Sharma

    For Judgment Debtors: Senior Advocate Amit Sibal with Advocates K.R. Sasiprabhu, Goutham Shivshankar, Yasharth Misra, Darpan Sachdeva

    Case Title :  Kalanithi Maran vs SpiceJet LtdCase Number :  OMP (COMM) 42 OF 2019CITATION :  2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 292
    Next Story