SpiceJet 2026: SC lets Delhi HC reconsider ₹144cr deposit

What the Supreme Court allowed, and what it did not

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order in the long-running arbitration dispute involving SpiceJet and its Managing Director Ajay Singh on one side, and Kalanithi Maran with KAL Airways on the other. But it permitted SpiceJet and Singh to approach the Delhi High Court again seeking appropriate relief on the payment schedule. The Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said the petitioners could move the High Court on the basis of “subsequent developments,” including a governmental order dated 05/05/2026. The Court also noted that the High Court may consider the request with the Section 34 challenge petition listed for final disposal on July 18.

Why the airline cited West Asia and a government guarantee scheme

SpiceJet told the court that the continuing West Asia situation was impacting the airline’s operations and finances. It also relied on a government emergency credit line guarantee scheme for the aviation sector, referred to in court as a subsequent policy development. SpiceJet’s counsel said the Central government had approved an emergency credit line guarantee package of ₹255,000 crore, of which ₹5,000 crore was meant for airlines. The airline said the funds were expected to be released by around July 10, and sought time linked to that timeline. During the hearing, SpiceJet also maintained that it was not disputing liability.

The 2015 roots: how the dispute began

The case traces back to 2015, when SpiceJet faced severe financial distress and was at risk of shutting down operations. Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways were the promoters and majority shareholders then, holding a 58.46% stake. The dispute relates to obligations under an agreement from that period, with disagreements emerging later over reciprocal performance. Those disputes eventually moved into arbitration. Over time, the litigation has expanded into award challenges and execution proceedings across the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.

The arbitral award and the interest component

In July 2018, a three-member arbitral tribunal directed SpiceJet and Ajay Singh to refund ₹308.21 crore to Maran and KAL Airways. The tribunal also awarded interest at 12% per annum from November 2015. Both sides filed challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Alongside those challenges, enforcement proceedings were initiated in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, adding layers of interim orders and compliance timelines.

Deposits, guarantees, and payments: what courts ordered earlier

The Delhi High Court directed SpiceJet to deposit ₹579 crore as an interim measure, which was modified in appeal to allow a ₹329 crore bank guarantee and a ₹250 crore cash deposit. In 2019, the ₹250 crore cash component was released to the decree holders. A further ₹58.21 crore was also paid from the bank guarantee. In February 2023, the Supreme Court directed encashment of the bank guarantee and ordered SpiceJet to pay ₹75 crore towards interest within three months, warning that failure would render the award executable in its entirety. In July 2023, the Court refused further time and held that the award had become executable due to non-compliance.

The Delhi High Court’s January 2026 order and “admitted liability”

In January 2026, the Delhi High Court dealt with applications by SpiceJet and Ajay Singh seeking a stay on the award. The Court noted that the Supreme Court’s directions had not been complied with. It also recorded that the judgment debtors had admitted in earlier proceedings that ₹194.51 crore remained payable towards interest, of which ₹50 crore had already been deposited. The High Court directed deposit of the remaining ₹144.51 crore within six weeks. Subsequent attempts to avoid a cash deposit, including offering immovable property, were rejected by the High Court.

SpiceJet’s offer of property and the review setbacks

SpiceJet offered an unencumbered one-acre property in Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, belonging to Ajay Singh, as security in lieu of cash. The airline told the court the property was worth more than ₹100 crore. The Delhi High Court rejected the substitution request, and the review petition was also dismissed. Separate reporting on the High Court proceedings noted costs of ₹50,000 being imposed while dismissing a review petition, and that the liability was treated as admitted in that context. SpiceJet then carried the matter to the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere but left room for the High Court to reconsider schedule-related relief based on later developments.

Key figures and dates (as stated in proceedings)

Market impact: why this matters for investors and the sector

The dispute remains a material overhang because it sits at the intersection of award enforcement, cash-flow constraints, and court-mandated deposits. SpiceJet’s submissions to the Supreme Court included claims on how much has already been paid and what remains outstanding, while the decree holders have continued to press for enforcement based on prior directions. The case also shows how macro factors, such as higher cost pressures linked to geopolitical events, can be brought into court as context for scheduling relief, even when liability is not disputed. The Supreme Court’s order does not change the underlying award position on its own, but it does signal that the High Court can examine payment scheduling in light of subsequent policy developments.

Analysis: what to watch next in Delhi High Court

The immediate next milestone is the Delhi High Court hearing, where SpiceJet may again seek relief based on the 05/05/2026 government order and the ECLGS context cited in court. The High Court also has the Section 34 petition listed for final disposal on July 18, which can shape the trajectory of the award challenge and related execution proceedings. Separately, SpiceJet’s stance in court has included that it is not disputing liability and is seeking time or a revised schedule, which places the focus on compliance terms rather than reopening the merits at this stage. Any High Court directions will need to be read alongside the Supreme Court’s earlier compliance-linked warnings and the record of admitted interest dues.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has kept the deposit requirement intact by refusing to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order, but it has allowed SpiceJet and Ajay Singh to return to the High Court citing subsequent developments, including the 05/05/2026 government order. The next steps are expected to play out in the Delhi High Court, with the Section 34 matter listed on July 18 and the airline seeking relief on the payment schedule tied to policy and operating conditions.