SpiceJet takes ₹144.5 crore deposit order to SC (2026)

What has changed in the SpiceJet-KAL Airways dispute

SpiceJet has taken its long-running legal dispute with KAL Airways and Kalanithi Maran to the Supreme Court of India, challenging directions linked to a cash deposit ordered by the Delhi High Court. The immediate flashpoint is a requirement to deposit ₹144.5 crore with the court registry as part of enforcement proceedings connected to a share transfer arbitration dispute. The matter traces back to a 2015 stake transfer deal and has seen years of arbitration and litigation.

The latest round of proceedings puts the focus on what courts described as an “admitted liability”, and on SpiceJet’s argument that liquidity stress makes an immediate cash payment difficult. The case has also drawn attention because SpiceJet cited disruptions linked to the West Asia conflict and higher aviation turbine fuel costs as part of its financial stress submissions.

Delhi High Court dismisses review, calls it an admitted liability

The Delhi High Court dismissed SpiceJet’s review petition on May 4, 2026, keeping intact an earlier direction requiring the airline to deposit ₹144.5 crore. In doing so, the court treated the amount as arising from an admitted liability recorded during enforcement proceedings. The review petition had been filed by SpiceJet and its promoter and Managing Director Ajay Singh.

Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the request to re-open the deposit direction through review. The court also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioners for filing the plea. Separately, the court directed immediate steps to deposit ₹144,51,69,887, which is approximately ₹144.52 crore.

Why ₹144.5 crore is being sought, and how ₹194.5 crore fits in

The deposit direction follows the Delhi High Court’s recording that ₹194.51 crore remained due under earlier directions. After adjusting a ₹50 crore amount already deposited, the court directed SpiceJet and Ajay Singh to deposit the balance of ₹144.51 crore.

SpiceJet’s position has been that it has already paid around ₹730 crore to Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways, including ₹580 crore towards principal and ₹150 crore in interest. At the same time, the broader dispute includes continuing contest over interest computations and outstanding dues, with total claims stated as exceeding ₹400 crore by the parties in litigation.

SpiceJet’s arguments: liquidity stress, fuel costs, and West Asia disruption

In court proceedings, SpiceJet argued that severe liquidity stress made an immediate cash deposit difficult. The airline pointed to rising aviation turbine fuel costs and disruptions linked to the ongoing West Asia conflict, saying these pressures affected its ability to comply within the earlier timelines. In one account of submissions, SpiceJet told the court it could “collapse” if forced to immediately deposit the ₹144.5 crore.

The Delhi High Court did not accept these grounds as a basis to dilute the cash deposit requirement in the review. The dismissal meant the airline’s obligation remained unchanged, even as SpiceJet sought more time and alternative arrangements.

Gurugram property offer rejected as substitute security

SpiceJet proposed offering an unencumbered immovable property in Gurugram as security in lieu of a cash deposit. The property value referenced in court coverage was around ₹148 crore. The court rejected the alternate security proposal and insisted on compliance with the cash deposit directive.

In another stage of the proceedings, the court granted limited timing relief by allowing four weeks to deposit the amount, while still refusing the title deed or property-security route. The core principle in the orders remained that the cash deposit had to be made with the registry, pending the outcome of the pending challenges.

Supreme Court actions: appeal, costs, and the latest procedural relief

SpiceJet filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on May 7, with a hearing tentatively set for May 18, as reported in the case updates. In a separate development, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court direction to deposit ₹144.51 crore, describing one attempt as “an abuse of the process”. Another report on the Supreme Court proceedings said the apex court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh for prolonging the litigation.

On May 19, the Supreme Court allowed SpiceJet and Ajay Singh to approach the Delhi High Court again in the dispute. This does not remove the deposit requirement in itself, but it does show the litigation has continued to move between forums on procedural routes while the core Section 34 challenge remains pending.

Key facts and figures at a glance

Timeline: how the deposit order progressed

Market and operational context: why the case matters for aviation

The dispute highlights how legacy legal cases can continue to pressure airline finances even during operational recovery cycles. SpiceJet’s filings and court submissions repeatedly refer to liquidity stress, indicating the deposit requirement is being treated as a cash-management issue, not merely a legal formality. The court, however, has focused on compliance with directions based on what it recorded as admitted amounts payable.

SpiceJet has also stated that depositing the money would be a security deposit that remains with the court while appeals are decided. In a separate statement after an adverse Supreme Court order, the airline said the development had no impact on its day-to-day operations and that it would comply with court directions.

Related relief: Supreme Court rejects ₹1,300 crore damages plea

In another connected strand, a report said the Supreme Court rejected KAL Airways’ plea seeking ₹1,300 crore in damages from SpiceJet. This reduced one large contingent claim hanging over the airline in the same broad dispute ecosystem. However, the cash-deposit direction of ₹144.5 crore remains active in the enforcement and arbitration-related proceedings as reported.

Conclusion

SpiceJet’s move to the Supreme Court comes after the Delhi High Court rejected its review attempt and kept the ₹144.5 crore cash deposit requirement intact, while also imposing costs. The case remains anchored in a 2015 share transfer dispute and years of arbitration and court challenges, including disagreement over interest calculations and the quantum payable. The next milestones are tied to court schedules already on record, including hearings linked to the Supreme Court process and the Delhi High Court listing for July 18, 2026.