“Attempt at global settlement”, informed SC in the dispute between SpiceJet and Kalanithi Maran
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would consider a joint request for mediation by airlines SpiceJet and media baron Kalanithi Maran and his KAL Airways to reach an out-of-court settlement of all outstanding disputes, including the quarrel on the question of the transfer of shares.
Lead Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing SpiceJet, told a bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana that the plaintiff and the respondents – Maran and KAL Airways – are seeking a comprehensive settlement comprising three issues requiring detailed discussion to the settlement, namely: the question of the discharge of the loan and the release of the amount of the insured surety, the interest due, and the capitalization of the proceedings in progress.
He informed the bench, which also includes Judges JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli, that the petitioner has already settled a dispute regarding loan authorization and release of the security amount with City Union Bank and requested a four-day grace period. six weeks to resolve all issues. Rohatgi asked the court to list the case after four to six weeks so that a settlement could be reached.
Lead attorney Vikas Singh appearing for the decree holders suggested to the apex court that the settlement talks could be referred to the Hyderabad Mediation Center for settlement. The bench asked if an arbitrator should be appointed to which Singh and Rohatgi asked that the matter be referred to mediation instead.
“We’ll see,” the bench said.
Singh and lead attorney Maninder Singh, assisted by attorneys from Karanjawala & Co., appeared on behalf of Kal Airways and Kalanithi Maran.
The higher court was hearing special leave petitions filed by SpiceJet Ltd. against KAL Airways and Kalanithi Maran (Edict Holders) challenging the Order dated September 2, 2020, passed by the Delhi High Court, by which SpiceJet was requested to deposit Rs 242.56 crore to secure the Decree Holders to the extent interest awarded to them under an arbitration award. The High Court had suspended the execution of the High Court’s order and the holders of the decree had filed a request to have the stay cancelled.