Can a judgment debtor indefinitely delay compliance with an executable arbitral award by recycling pleas of financial distress, invoking geopolitical crises, and rotating between courts? The Delhi High Court’s decision in Spicejet Ltd. v. Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Ors1. “In its judgment delivered on May 4, 2026, the Court rejected this contention, drawing a firm line between legitimate judicial relief and what it termed a ‘complete abuse of the process of law.” The judgment is significant not only for its outcome but for its articulation of the limits of review jurisdiction, the preclusive effect of apex court dismissals, and the constitutional imperative under Article 144 that courts act in aid of the Supreme Court’s directions.
From Rescue to a Decade of Dispute
The case arose from a Share Sale and Purchase Agreement (SSPA) dated 29 January 2015, under which the respondent’s promoters transferred 58.46% shareholding in SpiceJet to Ajay Singh for a nominal consideration of Rs. 2, in exchange for infusion of Rs. 450 crores and release of personal guarantees. Disputes regarding reciprocal obligations were referred to arbitration, culminating in an award dated 20 July 20182 directing SpiceJet to pay Kal Airways Rs. 308,21,89,461 with interest at 12% per annum from November 2015. While both parties challenged portions of the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, enforcement proceedings under Section 36 continued simultaneously.
By February 2023, the Supreme Court directed that failure to pay Rs. 75 crores within three months would render the award executable in full. SpiceJet defaulted on the Supreme Court’s February 2023 direction to pay Rs. 75 crores, leading the Court on 07 July 2023 to dismiss its extension application and declare the arbitral award immediately executable. In 2023, the Review Petitioners admitted, without prejudice, that Rs. 194,51,69,887 remained payable. Following payment of Rs. 50 crores pursuant to a February 2024 High Court order, Rs. 144,51,69,887 remained outstanding. On 19 January 2026, the High Court directed the deposit of this balance within six weeks. The Supreme Court continued to reject SpiceJet’s later challenges, including its requests to furnish property as security instead of depositing cash, up to March 2026.
Reopening Settled Issues
The court reaffirmed the narrow scope of review jurisdiction, relying on cases such as Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik3, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma4, and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta5. Justice Subramonium Prasad held that review cannot operate as an appeal in disguise and is limited to cases involving discovery of new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient grounds. The court emphasised that errors requiring elaborate reasoning and subsequent developments cannot justify review.
Applying these principles, the court rejected SpiceJet’s plea of financial distress, noting that the airline had already raised similar arguments before the Supreme Court, which had dismissed the Special Leave Petitions with costs. The High Court held that reopening the same grounds in review proceedings would amount to indirectly challenging the Supreme Court’s decision, which is impermissible.
The court also rejected reliance on later developments such as hostilities in West Asia, suspension of international flights, reduction in revenues, and the alleged release of the Gurugram property from mortgage. Since the arbitral award had already been declared executable on 07 July 2023, the court held that these subsequent events were irrelevant to the review of the earlier orders.
On the issue of substituting property and security for cash deposit, the court observed that the Gurugram property had earlier been shown as mortgaged, and SpiceJet failed to conclusively establish otherwise at the relevant stage. It reiterated that discretionary decisions cannot be reopened merely because a party disagrees with them, relying on Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi6. Distinguishing Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc.7, the court stressed that the present matter arose directly from Supreme Court directions. Invoking Article 144 and Madan Mohan v. Krishan Kumar Sood8, the High Court dismissed the review petitions with costs and directed SpiceJet to deposit Rs. 144.51 crore immediately.
Conclusion
What this judgment ultimately demonstrates is that judicial patience, however considerable, is not infinite. Courts have an obligation to enforce the orders of the Supreme Court and cannot become a staging ground for serial delay. When a party has admitted its liability, breached multiple timelines, been censured repeatedly by the apex court, and exhausted every available procedural avenue, the invocation of geopolitical events or anticipated government support carries no juridical weight. The court drew a clear distinction between genuine hardship warranting equitable consideration and tactical litigation designed to defer compliance and found, on the facts, that SpiceJet’s conduct fell squarely in the latter category. The decision is a timely reminder that the constitutional mandate under Article 144 is not merely aspirational; it imposes a real and enforceable obligation on every court in the land to give effect to the Supreme Court’s directions without indulgence or delay.
Citations
Expositor(s): Adv. Jahnobi Paul, Shreya Shukla (Intern)
