Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Spicejet Ltd. & Anr
Date of Order:
May 29, 2023
Justice Yogesh Khanna
Decree Holder – Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd
Judgment debtor - M/S Spicejet Ltd. & Anr
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 is an Act of the Parliament of India that seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic and international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. It replaces the Arbitration Act of 1940. The Act extends to the whole of India and applies to all arbitrations and conciliations, whether concluded before or after the commencement of the Act.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 34
- KAL Airways (decree holder) initiated arbitration proceedings against SpiceJet (judgment debtor) for several purported breaches / non-compliance with the terms of the Share Sale & Purchase Agreement dated January 29, 2015 (“SSPA”).
- The present execution petition was filed by KAL Airways against Spiceject before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
- Is the execution petition filed by the decree-holder against the judgment debtor maintainable?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE DECREE-HOLDER
- Advocates Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Sonia Nigam, Mr. Yash Dubey, Mr. Yashwant Gaggar, and Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, represented the decree-holder.
- The counsel contended that the judgment debtor had not filed the affidavit of assets to date and that the order constitutes a violation.
- It was submitted that the judgment debtors were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.242,93,70,845.56/- within three weeks via an order. A different application was made to modify the said order. Both these orders were challenged by the judgment debtor and they were dismissed.
- Hence, it was further submitted that the judgment debtor had to make payments directly to the decree-holder, including an additional amount of Rs.75.00 crores within 3 months.
- The counsel held that due to the default in the payment, the interest liability has since increased to Rs.380 crores, and thus the decree-holder insists on compliance with the order dated 13.02.2023.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR
- Advocates Mr. Sandeep Sethi, and Mr. Abhinav Sharma represented the judgment debtor.
- The counsels asserted that the principal amount has already been paid and only qua interest is pending, for which they’ve requested an extension of time to make the payment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
- It is submitted that this Court has no power to extend the time limit as granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court per order dated 13.02.2023.
- The Hon’ble court ruled that there is no alternate remedy in this case, except for the judgment holder to deposit the amount of Rs.75.00 crores to the decree-holder with interest.
- The decree-holder's arguments were plausible in the court's eyes. It was observed that since there is no modification to the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it needs to be followed.
- The court also directed the affidavit of assets to be filed within four weeks from the date of judgment.
Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is related to the setting aside of an arbitral award. It states that any party to arbitration proceedings can apply to the court with the necessary jurisdiction to set aside an arbitral award. The Delhi High Court disposed of the present execution petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench consisting of Justice Yogesh Khanna has directed SpiceJet to pay the entire arbitral award of Rs. 380 crores to the airline’s former promoter, Kalanithi Maran.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement