The airline said it had deposited $5 million in court to stay the order until an appeal was filed.
Air carrier SpiceJet Ltd has filed an appeal before a division bench of the Madras High Court challenging a single judge’s December 6 order winding up the company for non-payment of more than $24 million to a Swiss company , which maintains, repairs and overhauls aircraft engines. and components.
Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumar Kurup were informed on Wednesday by senior advocate V. Ramakrishnan, representing SpiceJet, that the company had filed a single quashing of an amount equal to $5 million in the court to stay and enable their order. Followed the directions of the judge. Air carrier to go on appeal.
After recording their submissions and hearing preliminary arguments made by them as well as counsel Rahul Balaji, representing Zurich-based stock corporation Credit Suisse AG, which was entrusted with the right to receive payments on account of SR Techniques, the judges The matter was adjourned till Thursday. For further hearing.
In his submission, Mr Ramakrishnan said, the air carrier had entered into an agreement with the Swiss company in 2011 for a period of 10 years. However, in between, it turned out that the aircraft maintenance company did not have a valid authorization from the director. Civil Aviation General from 1 January 2009 to 18 May 2015.
“It was something terrible, shocking and very, very serious and that’s why we stopped paying,” the senior counsel said and argued that the single judge had made two errors. Earlier, the single judge had accepted that SpiceJet had entered into a settlement despite being aware of the lack of DGCA approval. Such an assumption was based on the arbitration proceedings between the two companies in London. Secondly, the judge wondered why SpiceJet did not terminate the agreement with the Swiss company, even though it can be assumed that it had come to know about the failure to obtain the DGCA’s approval only midway.
“It’s like asking why I didn’t divorce my wife, why I stayed with her. Termination is not a mandatory requirement. We didn’t know about the approval. When we came to know about it, we stopped the payment. There is no conclusion in the arbitral decision that we were already aware of the non-approval before entering into the agreement,” said the lawyer.
He also argued that an “illegal claim” for arrears would not come under the definition of ‘debt’ under the Companies Act and thus the company would be asked to pass an order for winding up.
On the other hand, Mr. Balaji said, SpiceJet could not even deny the existence of challans and certificates of acceptance. “Their (SpiceJet) logic is like alcohol which they feel will improve with age. Not a single document was issued to me by them during the period of the agreement stating that I am not authorized and hence they will not pay me,” he said.
,