The Delhi High Court has dismissed applications filed by SpiceJet and its promoter Ajay Singh seeking modification of a prior order directing deposit of over ₹144 crore, holding that the plea amounted to a repetition of arguments already rejected by the Supreme Court and an abuse of process.
The Court, presided over by Justice Subramonium Prasad, was dealing with applications seeking permission to furnish immovable property as security in lieu of depositing the decretal amount in an arbitral award enforcement dispute involving Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways.
At the outset, the Court noted that all grounds raised in the present applications including financial hardship and inability to deposit funds had already been urged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions, which were dismissed with exemplary costs.
Rejecting the attempt to re-agitate the issue, the Court held that once such pleas have been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court, they cannot be raised again before the High Court under the guise of modification. It observed that the present applications were not in the nature of a review and did not satisfy the requirements under Order XLVII CPC.
The Court further emphasised that repetitive litigation on identical grounds across forums constitutes abuse of judicial process, particularly where the Supreme Court has already characterised such conduct adversely.
On merits, the Court also found no substance in the proposal to substitute the deposit with property. It noted that there was no clear material to establish that the property was free from encumbrances, and in any event, nothing prevented the judgment debtors from liquidating the asset earlier to comply with court directions.
Importantly, the Court held that financial difficulty cannot be repeatedly invoked as a ground for non-compliance, especially after the same contention has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the applications seeking modification of the order dated January 19, 2026 were dismissed. The Court also declined the request for preponement of hearing.
However, in limited indulgence, the Court granted four weeks’ additional time to the judgment debtors to arrange funds, including by selling the property, and comply with the direction to deposit ₹144.51 crore with the Registry.
Appearances:
For Decree Holders: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Sonia Nigam, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Mr. Akarsh Sharma, Advocates
For Judgment Debtors: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, Mr. Yasharth Misra, Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, Advocates
