New Delhi, July 23, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dismissed appeals filed by KAL Airways and media baron Kalanithi Maran, challenging a Delhi High Court order that had rejected their claim seeking ₹1,323 crore in damages from SpiceJet and its chairman Ajay Singh.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar upheld the High Court’s May 23 ruling, which dismissed the appeals on grounds of delay and concealment of facts. The court observed that the appellants had engaged in a “calculated gamble” by delaying the filing and re-filing of their challenge to a 2023 arbitral award.
The legal battle stems from a 2015 share transfer agreement, under which Maran and KAL Airways sold their 58.46% stake in SpiceJet to Ajay Singh for a nominal ₹2, as part of a revival plan for the financially distressed airline. As part of the deal, Maran claimed to have paid ₹679 crore for the issuance of convertible warrants and preference shares, which were allegedly never issued.
In 2017, Maran initiated arbitration proceedings, seeking damages for breach of contract. The arbitral tribunal, comprising three retired Supreme Court judges, rejected the ₹1,323 crore damages claim but directed SpiceJet to refund ₹579 crore with interest.
Following the arbitral award, both parties approached the Delhi High Court. In July 2023, a single judge upheld the refund directive but dismissed Maran’s broader claims. On appeal, the division bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Maran and KAL Airways then filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court, which were dismissed in July 2024.
Subsequently, they refiled defective appeals with significant delays—55 days in filing and 226 days in re-filing—which the High Court refused to condone. The Supreme Court concurred with this assessment, stating that the appellants had deliberately concealed material facts and acted with strategic intent rather than negligence.
The apex court’s dismissal effectively closes the chapter on Maran’s long-standing damages claim, reinforcing judicial scrutiny over procedural integrity and timely litigation.
