Delhi High Court Rejects SpiceJet’s Plea for More Time to Deposit ₹144.51 Crore
The Delhi High Court on October 13, 2026, rejected SpiceJet Ltd. and its promoter Ajay Singh’s request for additional time to deposit approximately ₹144.51 crore in connection with a long-running arbitration dispute involving former promoters Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd.
Justice Vinod Kumar declined to grant an extension after noting that the airline had failed to comply with its earlier undertaking to deposit ₹50 crore with the Court’s Registry within 45 days. The Court also refused the proposal to furnish documents relating to a property in Gurugram as security in place of the required cash deposit.
Failure to Comply with Earlier Undertaking
Under an order dated July 13, 2026, SpiceJet and Ajay Singh had undertaken to deposit ₹50 crore within 45 days and the remaining ₹94.51 crore within 90 days. The arrangement was intended to demonstrate their bona fides in complying with the Court’s directions concerning the outstanding arbitral amount.
However, the initial deposit was not made within the stipulated period. The Court observed that it might have considered a more lenient approach towards the timeline for the second instalment if the petitioners had first complied with their commitment to deposit ₹50 crore.
The Court consequently dismissed the application seeking additional time. It also declined to accept the Gurugram property documents as security, emphasising that the petitioners had failed to honour the initial payment undertaking.
Background of the Arbitration Dispute
The dispute originates from a 2015 share transfer arrangement under which Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways transferred their shareholding in SpiceJet to Ajay Singh during a period of financial difficulty for the airline. Disagreements subsequently arose concerning obligations under the transaction and related financial arrangements, resulting in arbitration proceedings.
In July 2018, an arbitral tribunal directed SpiceJet and Ajay Singh to refund amounts to Maran and KAL Airways, together with interest. The award and its enforcement have since been the subject of multiple proceedings before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
In the subsequent enforcement proceedings, the courts issued directions concerning deposits, bank guarantees and payment of interest. The current dispute relates to compliance with the High Court’s directions regarding the outstanding amount and the petitioners’ request to modify the payment arrangements.
Next Hearing
The latest development leaves the earlier deposit requirements in place, with no extension granted through the dismissed application. The underlying proceedings concerning the arbitral award are scheduled for further consideration on November 3, 2026.
The decision highlights the importance of complying with undertakings made to courts in commercial disputes, particularly where enforcement of an arbitral award is involved. The refusal to grant further time does not, by itself, resolve every outstanding issue in the underlying arbitration proceedings.
Source: Bar & Bench, October 13, 2026, with corroboration from The Tribune and other reports.