SC upholds Delhi HC's order rejecting claims by KAL Airways, Maran for Rs 1,323 Cr

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar dismissed the appeals by KAL Airways and Maran, saying the court was not inclined to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The High Court had rejected the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as the delay in re-filing those appeals.

“We find that on the basis of the material on record, the inference drawn by the division bench while refusing to condone the delay cannot be brushed away or that the conclusions drawn were without any basis,” the bench said.

The High Court's division bench in its order in May noted delay in filing the appeals, and suppressing of material facts related to their pending applications and for unjustifiably delaying the proceedings.

The court had then felt Maran, a former promoter of SpiceJet, had engaged in a "calculated gamble" by delaying the filing and re-filing of their appeals.

The apex court, in its order, found “While arriving at this conclusion, the division bench was alive to the fact that the approach of the court while dealing with applications for condonation of delay in refiling, was ordinarily to be expansive.”

The High Court had also said that the petitioners had been fence sitting and that they were also guilty of deliberate and wilful concealment of facts from the court.

Maran and KAL Airways had in February 2015 transferred their entire 58.46% stake in the airline to Ajay Singh.

On July 20, 2018, the arbitral tribunal had rejected Maran’s claim of damages of Rs 1,323 crore for not issuing warrants to him and KAL Airways but awarded him a refund of Rs 579 crore with interest.

Both sides challenged the arbitral award and the petitions were dismissed by a single judge of the Delhi High Court in July 2023.

SpiceJet and its chairman Ajay Singh promptly appealed against the dismissal within the statutory 60-day period. Their appeals were heard and in May last year, the division bench found merit in SpiceJet’s contentions and remanded the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration.