The airline owes the Swiss aircraft maintenance firm $24 million; stay of order allowing appeal
The Madras High Court on Monday directed air carrier SpiceJet Ltd to wind up non-payment of over $24 million to a Swiss company that maintains, repairs and overhauls aircraft’s engines and components.
Justice R. Subramaniam passed the order allowing a company petition filed by Credit Suisse AG, a Zurich-based stock corporation, which was entrusted with the right to receive payments on account of SR Technics. He directed an official liquidator to take over the assets of SpiceJet.
punctuality
However, after the verdict, the judge stayed the operation of its judgment for a period of three weeks so that SpiceJet could go on appeal. The stay was given on the condition that the company would deposit $4 million to SR Technics’ credit within a fortnight.
Accepting the plea of the company transferred by Credit Suisse AG, the judge concurred with his counsel Rahul Balaji that SpiceJet had owed its liabilities by executing the certificate, as per an agreement between the two companies, for a period of 10 years in 2011. was explicitly accepted. Acceptance.
The counsel submitted that despite executing the acceptance certificate to avail the benefit of deferment of payment of six months, SpiceJet has failed to fulfill its commitments. Thereafter the petitioner issued notice of winding up under section 433 of the Companies Act 1956 and filed the present case.
Though SpiceJet had made several defenses to oppose the winding up plea, the judge held that they were not authentic. “Having obtained an advantage under the supplementary agreement and executing the documents as required, the defendant may no longer seek to evade liability by raising technical objections,” they wrote.
DGCA not approved
It was argued on behalf of SpiceJet that SR Technics did not have valid authorization from the Director General of Civil Aviation to fulfill aircraft engine maintenance contracts between 1 January 2009 and 18 May 2015 and hence the loan was against public policy in India. .
However, the judge rejected the argument and agreed with Mr. Balaji that SpiceJet was well aware of the lack of DGCA’s approval and nevertheless decided to enter into a maintenance contract. Having done so, the company could no longer turn around and complain of violations of the provisions of the Aircraft Act, the judge concluded.