The Supreme Court is set to hear SpiceJet’s plea on Friday seeking relief from a Delhi High Court order, dated 19 January, directing it to deposit ₹144.51 crore, the latest escalation in a decade-long dispute with former promoter Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd.
The case concerns enforcement of payment obligations arising from a 2018 arbitral award linked to the airline’s 2015 ownership transfer. The latest order has intensified legal and financial pressure on the budget carrier, which has challenged the deposit direction before the top court.
Here is a breakdown of the dispute, the prolonged court battle, and what is at stake.
What is the dispute about?
The case traces back to January 2015, when Maran and KAL Airways transferred their 58.46% stake in SpiceJet to Ajay Singh under a share sale and purchase agreement, at a time when the airline was facing severe financial distress and was close to shutting down.
As part of the arrangement, Maran and KAL Airways had paid about ₹679 crore to SpiceJet for issuance of convertible warrants and preference shares. Maran later alleged that these instruments were not issued under the new management, prompting him to approach the Delhi High Court in 2017 seeking a refund.
Since the agreement contained an arbitration clause, the matter was referred to arbitration.
How did the long litigation unfold?
In July 2018, a three-member arbitral tribunal comprising retired Supreme Court judges rejected Maran’s claim for ₹1,323 crore in damages. However, it directed SpiceJet to refund ₹579 crore along with interest relating to the warrants and preference shares.
Both sides challenged aspects of the award before the Delhi High Court.
In February 2023, the Supreme Court directed that a ₹270 crore bank guarantee be encashed and paid to Maran and KAL Airways. It also asked SpiceJet to pay ₹75 crore towards interest within a specified period, warning that failure to comply would make the award fully executable.
Later in 2023, a single judge of the Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award, directing refund of ₹308 crore for warrants and ₹270 crore for preference shares, along with applicable interest.
SpiceJet challenged this before a division bench. In May 2024, the division bench remanded the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration, effectively putting part of the liability on hold.
Maran and KAL Airways approached the Supreme Court against the remand order, but their plea was dismissed in July 2024. Subsequent appeals were also dismissed on grounds of delay. In July 2025, the Supreme Court rejected Maran’s separate plea seeking ₹1,323 crore in damages.
The matter then returned to the high court in enforcement proceedings.
History of non-compliance and contempt
After the 2018 award, Maran initiated enforcement proceedings alleging non-payment, and the case moved repeatedly between the high court and the Supreme Court.
In February and July 2023, the Supreme Court issued payment and compliance directions. The Delhi High Court later observed that these directions were not fully complied with.
Maran initiated contempt proceedings alleging wilful non-compliance. At various stages, the high court directed Ajay Singh to appear personally in court, including in late 2023 when he was asked to be present for hearings relating to interest payments.
The high court also recorded that procedural directions, including filing affidavits of assets, were not complied with. Although ₹50 crore was deposited pursuant to earlier orders, further amounts remained unpaid.
Why did the high court order ₹144.51 crore deposit?
In its recent order, justice Subramonium Prasad noted that SpiceJet had admitted that ₹194.51 crore was due and payable under Supreme Court directions. Since ₹50 crore had already been deposited, ₹144.51 crore remained outstanding.
The court rejected SpiceJet’s argument that enforcement should wait until its challenge to the arbitral award is finally decided, holding that Supreme Court directions cannot be kept in limbo and must be complied with.
Referring to Article 144 of the Constitution, the high court said that all authorities must follow and support the Supreme Court’s orders, stressing that such directions cannot be kept pending indefinitely and that repeated delays weaken the authority of the judiciary.
Accordingly, the high court directed deposit of ₹144.51 crore within six weeks, a direction now challenged before the Supreme Court.
What is at stake?
For SpiceJet, the dispute has become a recurring legal and financial overhang for nearly a decade. The airline has also faced separate litigation and insolvency pleas from aircraft and engine lessors over unpaid dues.
Repeated enforcement actions and deposit orders have come at a time when the airline has been navigating liquidity pressures and operational challenges.
In its defence during enforcement and contempt proceedings, SpiceJet argued that it was facing severe financial stress and liquidity constraints. It told the courts that the aviation sector had been hit by high fuel prices, currency volatility and the lingering effects of the pandemic. The airline said it was prioritizing essential operational payments such as aircraft leases, employee salaries and airport dues to keep services running.