New Delhi, July 23 (UNI) The Supreme Court today dismissed an appeal filed by Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that had held they engaged in a “calculated gamble” by delaying the filing and re-filing of their challenge against a 2023 arbitral award in the SpiceJet dispute.
A bench comprising justices PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar passed the order.
The case stems from a longstanding commercial fallout between Kalanithi Maran and Ajay Singh, promoter of SpiceJet, relating to control and financial obligations of the airline.
In 2018, an arbitral tribunal consisting of three retired Supreme Court judges directed SpiceJet to refund ₹270 crore to Maran and KAL Airways while rejecting their other claims.
Both sides filed petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging parts of the award.
On July 31, 2023, a single judge of the Delhi High Court upheld the refund direction but dismissed the appellants’ challenges against portions of the award unfavourable to them.
SpiceJet and Singh filed intra-court appeals within the limitation period in August 2023, which were heard on multiple dates and decided on May 17, 2024.
The division bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different single judge, effectively putting the refund order on hold. Maran and KAL Airways’ Special Leave Petitions against this ruling were dismissed by the Supreme Court on July 26, 2024.
Four days later, on July 30, 2024, Maran and KAL Airways refiled defective appeals they had originally filed with a 55-day delay, but left pending for 226 days due to unresolved objections.
On May 24, 2025, the division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed these appeals, refusing to condone both the initial filing delay and the prolonged re-filing delay.
In its strongly worded judgment, the High Court found the appellants’ conduct lacking in bona fides and intentionally misleading.
The court held that the delays were part of a conscious litigation strategy rather than mere negligence or oversight.
It also noted that while the appellants actively participated in proceedings arising out of SpiceJet’s timely appeals, they concealed the existence of their own defective and dormant appeals.
The bench highlighted the timing of the re-filing, just days after their SLPs were dismissed, as evidence of a “carefully orchestrated” move.
The court found the explanation offered by Maran and KAL Airways neither credible nor consistent with good faith conduct.
Rejecting their plea for condonation of delay, the court emphasised that limitation laws, based on equity and fairness, cannot be invoked to protect litigants acting with such strategic intent.
The appeals were dismissed in limine without examining their merits.
For Kalanithi Maran, senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu with advocates Nandini Gore, Sonia Nigam, Swati Bhardwaj, Mohammad Shahyan Khan, and Akarsh Sharma from Karanjawala & Co appeared.
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.
