The Delhi High Court rejected Kalanithi Maran’s plea against SpiceJet, criticising him for taking a ‘calculated gamble’ in the dispute with Ajay Singh over the airline’s control, arising from a commercial disagreement involving KAL Airways.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by businessman Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways against SpiceJet and its promoter, Ajay Singh, ruling that the appellants had engaged in a “calculated gamble” by delaying both the filing and re-filing of their challenge to a 2023 arbitral award.
A division bench, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul, found no justification for condoning the 55-day delay in filing and the 226-day delay in re-filing the appeals.
They described the appellants’ actions as lacking bona fides and amounting to deliberate concealment from the court and the opposing parties.
The Court noted,
“This is not a simple case of delay… It is a case of deliberate and wilful concealment of facts both from the Division Bench as well as from the respondents and a calculated gamble taken by the appellants,”
The case originated from a commercial dispute in 2015 involving Maran, KAL Airways, and Singh regarding the control and operation of SpiceJet.
An arbitral tribunal comprising three retired Supreme Court judges issued an award on July 20, 2018. Both parties then filed petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to contest parts of the award.
These petitions were dismissed by a single judge on July 31, 2023, who upheld the arbitral tribunal’s 2018 award directing SpiceJet to refund Rs.270 crores to Maran. SpiceJet and Singh appealed this dismissal within the statutory 60-day period in August 2023.
After multiple hearings, the division bench decided in May 2024 to remand the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration, putting the Rs.270 crore refund on hold.
Maran and KAL Airways subsequently approached the Supreme Court, but their Special Leave Petitions were dismissed on July 26, 2024, affirming the remand for further review by a different single judge bench.
Just four days later, the appellants rectified defects and refiled their long-pending appeals against the single judge’s 2023 ruling, which had dismissed their petitions challenging certain aspects of the arbitral tribunal’s 2018 decision.
In a critical assessment of the appellants’ conduct, the division bench pointed out that Maran and KAL Airways had “concealed” their appeals while actively participating in the proceedings related to SpiceJet’s timely appeals.
“This is not a case in which the appellants bona fide filed the present FAOs in time and were merely indolent or even negligent in removing objections in refiling the FAOs. This is a case in which the appellants took a calculated gamble.”
The Court found it difficult to accept the appellants’ claim of inadvertence, noting,
“The alacrity with which the appellants effected service of the present FAOs on the respondents, removed the objections in the FAOs and refiled the FAOs within four days of the Supreme Court order on 26 July 2024, indicates that the entire exercise was carefully orchestrated.”
The Court further stated that such behavior disqualified the appellants from seeking equitable relief,
“Limitation is a statute of equity and repose, and if the delay, whether in filing or refiling, is found to be lacking in bona fides, it has to be sternly dealt with.”
The High Court observed that Maran and KAL Airways only refiled their defective appeals after the Supreme Court’s rejection.
They highlighted a revealing admission in the appellants’ own condonation application,
“Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 17.05.2024… the management of the Applicant decided to challenge the said judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as refile the captioned Appeal……The only inaccuracy in this admission is that the appellants did not decide to revitalize the present appeals, by removing the objections therein, even after the judgment… but only after the SLPs… were also dismissed.”
Concluding that the delay was not only unexplained but also part of a strategic litigation approach, the Court dismissed the appeals,
“The facts of the present case do not attract the general principles regarding leniency in the matter of condonation of delay in refiling… In such circumstance, it hardly matters whether the delay is in filing or in refiling of the appeals.”
The Court chose not to engage with the technical rules regarding re-filing and stated,
“Accordingly, we decline to condone the delay of 55 days in filing and 226 days in re-filing the present appeals… The appeals also stand dismissed on the ground of delay without going into merits.”
Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways were represented by Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda, along with a team of advocates from Karanjawala & Co. SpiceJet was represented by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal and a group of advocates.
Read Attachment