SpiceJet setback 2026: Delhi HC upholds ₹144cr deposit order

What the Delhi High Court decided

The Delhi High Court has dismissed review petitions filed by SpiceJet and its promoter Ajay Singh in their long-running dispute with Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways Pvt Ltd. Justice Subramonium Prasad refused to revisit the court’s earlier direction requiring a deposit of around ₹144 crore as part of execution-stage proceedings linked to an arbitral award. The court also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the airline and Singh.

The judge directed SpiceJet and Singh to deposit ₹144.51 crore with the court registry. The order follows earlier directions passed in January, when the High Court had required the amount to be deposited within six weeks against what the court recorded as an admitted liability of around ₹194 crore. The timeline was later extended, but the airline’s attempt to review the extension-related order did not succeed.

Deposit amount, admitted liability, and timelines

On January 19, the High Court directed SpiceJet and Ajay Singh to deposit the amount with the registry within six weeks. The court recorded that the direction was issued against an admitted liability of ₹194 crore. In another account of the case proceedings, the amount due is described as ₹194.51 crore, with ₹50 crore already deposited, leaving a balance of ₹144.51 crore.

On March 18, the High Court extended the deadline by four weeks. SpiceJet and Singh then approached the court through review petitions seeking reconsideration of that March 18 order and further relief on compliance.

With the review petitions dismissed, the court reiterated the requirement to deposit the balance and also passed directions on costs and where those costs must be paid.

SpiceJet’s arguments: financial stress and West Asia conflict

SpiceJet and Ajay Singh argued that an immediate cash deposit would cause financial strain. The airline linked its difficulties to the wider West Asia conflict and cited the impact on the aviation sector. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Sibal appeared for SpiceJet and Singh, pressing for reconsideration of the earlier direction.

The petitions also indicated that the Centre might extend support to the airline, and SpiceJet attempted to persuade the court that the circumstances justified relaxing or revisiting the deposit condition. The airline’s position was that a cash deposit of this size would be difficult to arrange within the timeframe.

The Gurugram property offer and why it was rejected

As an alternative to cash, SpiceJet offered a commercial property in Gurugram as security. The court declined to accept the offer to provide a property belonging to Singh for attachment in place of the deposit. In the submissions recorded, Maran and KAL Airways also opposed this approach.

In one set of arguments placed before the court, it was stated on behalf of Maran and KAL Airways that the Gurugram property was encumbered with IDFC Bank. The High Court did not accept the substitution request and proceeded with the deposit direction.

Court’s reasoning: later events cannot delay execution

The High Court said geopolitical developments that arose after the Supreme Court’s order could not be used to delay compliance with binding directions. It noted that the arbitral award had already been made executable by the Supreme Court in July 2023. It also recorded that SpiceJet’s financial difficulties had been considered earlier and did not justify further relief.

The judge observed that the petitioners were relying on events that occurred long after the apex court’s order and were effectively disregarding binding directions. The High Court also rejected the plea for more time to sell assets, stating that sufficient opportunity had already been granted and that the opportunity was being misused.

Costs imposed and where the money goes

Along with rejecting the review petitions, the High Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on SpiceJet and Ajay Singh. The court directed that this amount be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties’ Welfare Fund within four weeks.

Separately, Maran’s side also pointed to prior Supreme Court proceedings, where the top court refused to interfere with the deposit direction and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh while dismissing SpiceJet’s challenge. The High Court, while deciding the review petitions, emphasised that similar relief had already been refused earlier.

Background: the Maran-KAL Airways vs SpiceJet dispute

The dispute dates back to the period when Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways transferred a 58.46% stake in SpiceJet to Ajay Singh for ₹2 amid a financial crisis at the airline. The case centres on allegations relating to the non-issuance of warrants after the ownership transfer.

In July 2018, a three-member arbitral tribunal directed SpiceJet and Ajay Singh to refund ₹308.21 crore to Maran and KAL Airways, along with interest at 12% per annum from November 2015. Both sides filed challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while enforcement proceedings continued in parallel.

In May 2024, a division bench of the Delhi High Court set aside an earlier order that had upheld a ₹579 crore arbitral award against SpiceJet and Singh and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Key facts at a glance

Market impact: what investors track from here

For SpiceJet, the order keeps the focus on near-term cash outflow tied to litigation. A court-directed deposit of ₹144.51 crore is a specific compliance requirement with a set timeline, and the High Court has declined to allow property security in place of cash.

From an investor perspective, the key watchpoints are procedural rather than predictive: whether the deposit is made within the time granted, and how the broader arbitration and execution proceedings progress after the court’s refusal to revisit the deposit direction. The High Court’s emphasis on the award being executable since July 2023 also signals limited room for further delay on similar grounds.

Why the ruling matters in the broader dispute

The High Court’s dismissal of the review petitions is significant because it reinforces that execution-stage compliance will not be postponed by citing later developments when higher courts have already issued binding directions. It also reflects the court’s position that repeated attempts to seek more time, or to substitute security, will face a high bar when the same grounds have been raised earlier.

At the same time, the underlying dispute remains long-running, with the broader arbitration challenges and related court proceedings having moved through multiple stages, including a May 2024 remand order by a division bench. The current order, however, is focused on the deposit direction linked to the execution track.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has refused to review its earlier direction requiring SpiceJet and Ajay Singh to deposit around ₹144 crore in the Maran-KAL Airways dispute and has imposed ₹50,000 in costs. The court has directed the deposit with the registry and ordered the costs to be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties’ Welfare Fund within four weeks. The next immediate milestone is compliance with the deposit timeline set by the court, while the wider dispute continues through the legal process.