Supreme Court dismisses Kalanithi Maran plea against Delhi HC order over dispute with SpiceJet

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal by Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways challenging a Delhi High Court judgment holding that the he had engaged in a “calculated gamble” by delaying the filing and re-filing of the challenge to a 2023 arbitral award ruling in a dispute involving SpiceJet.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar passed the order today.

The dispute arises out of a long-standing commercial fallout between Kalanithi Maran and Ajay Singh, the promoter of SpiceJet, over control and financial obligations relating to the airline. In 2018, an arbitral tribunal comprising three retired Supreme Court judges passed an award directing SpiceJet to refund ₹270 crore to Maran and KAL Airways, while rejecting other claims made by the appellants.

Both parties filed petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging different portions of the award. These petitions were dismissed by a single judge of the Delhi High Court on July 31, 2023. While the single judge upheld the refund direction in favour of Maran, it also dismissed the appellants' challenges to the parts of the award that went against them.

SpiceJet and Singh filed intra-court appeals in August 2023 within the prescribed limitation period. Those appeals were heard on several dates and decided on May 17, 2024, with the division bench remanding the matter for fresh consideration by a different single judge. The direction to refund ₹270 crore was effectively put on hold. Maran and KAL Airways then approached the Supreme Court, which dismissed their Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) on July 26, 2024.

Just four days later, on July 30, 2024, Maran and KAL Airways refiled defective appeals they had originally submitted with a 55-day delay and had left pending for 226 days due to unresolved objections. The division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul dismissed these appeals on May 24, 2025, refusing to condone either the initial filing delay or the prolonged delay in re-filing.

In a sharply worded judgment, the Court found the appellants’ conduct to be lacking in bona fides and deliberately misleading. It held that the delay was not a result of negligence or oversight, but part of a conscious litigation strategy. The Court also noted that while the appellants actively participated in the proceedings arising from the timely appeals filed by SpiceJet, they simultaneously concealed the existence of their own defective and dormant appeals.

The Bench drew attention to the timing of the re-filing—just four days after the Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ SLPs—as evidence that the process was “carefully orchestrated.” The Court further observed that the explanation offered by the appellants was neither credible nor consistent with a party acting in good faith.

Rejecting the plea for condonation of delay, the Court emphasised that limitation law, being based on equity and fairness, could not be invoked in favour of litigants who act with such strategic intent. The ruling concluded that the case did not warrant leniency, and dismissed the appeals in limine without going into the merits.

Kalanidhi Maran was represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu with Advocates Nandini Gore, Sonia Nigam, Swati Bhardwaj, Mohammad Shahyan Khan and Akarsh Sharma from Karanjawala & Co.

Kal Airways was represented by Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan with Advocates Anugrah Robin Frey, Sukanya Singh and Rohit Rahar from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

SpiceJet and Ajay Singh were represented by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal with Advocates Goutham Shivshankar, Chinmayi Chatterjee and
KR Sasiprabhu.