Financial Distress and Subsequent Global Events Cannot Justify Non-Compliance With Apex Court-Mandated Arbitral Award Execution Directions

In brief

The question

1. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new matter warranting a review of the order dated 18.03.2026 under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC

The court held

The Court dismissed the Review Petitions, holding that no grounds for review were established

It also directed

The Court refused to grant any further extension of time or allow the substitution of the cash deposit with property security

The Petitioners were directed to comply with the order dated 18.03.2026 "forthwith" and deposit INR 144,51,69,887/- with the Registry

Additionally, the Court imposed a cost of INR 50,000/- on the Review Petitioners, payable to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties’ Welfare Fund

01Facts

The Respondents (former promoters of SpiceJet) sought enforcement of an Arbitral Award dated 20.07.2018 arising from a share purchase dispute

pp. 3-5

In February 2023, the Supreme Court directed the Petitioners (SpiceJet/Ajay Singh) to pay interest components, noting that any default would make the Award executable forthwith

p. 7

Following continuous non-compliance, the High Court on 19.01.2026 directed the Petitioners to deposit an admitted outstanding amount of INR 144,51,69,887/-

p. 8, 22

The Petitioners unsuccessfully challenged this in the Supreme Court, which dismissed their SLPs with costs on 27.02.2026

p. 8

The Petitioners kemudian filed modification applications to substitute a Gurugram property as security in lieu of cash, which were dismissed by the "Impugned Order" on 18.03.2026

pp. 8-9

The present Review Petitions seek to set aside the 18.03.2026 order, citing liquidity crises due to Middle East hostilities and the release of the property from mortgage as "subsequent developments"

pp. 11-12

02Issues

i.1. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new matter warranting a review of the order dated 18.03.2026 under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC

pp. 16-20

ii.2. Whether subsequent economic hardships (hostilities in West Asia) justify the substitution of a cash deposit with immovable property security after the Supreme Court declared the award executable

pp. 28-29

03Law Applied

The court applied the restrictive principles of review under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, as interpreted in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, which mandate that review is not an "appeal in disguise" and must be confined to errors apparent on the face of the record.

p. 16, 20

It further relied on Article 144 of the Constitution of India, requiring all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court

p. 22

Regarding the nature of execution, the court noted Madan Mohan v. Krishan Kumar Sood, holding that at the stage of execution of an award directed by the Apex Court, questions of "equity or hardship" cannot arise

p. 31

It also considered Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. regarding the doctrine of merger

p. 10

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 114

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Petitioners were attempting to re-litigate issues already settled by the Supreme Court’s orders in 2023 and the dismissal of their SLPs in February 2026

p. 26, 29

The Court rejected the "subsequent developments" argument (Middle East hostilities), noting that the obligation to pay became absolute years prior, and the Petitioners were in continuous breach of undertakings given to the court

p. 29

The Court observed that the financial distress argument had already been raised before and rejected by the Supreme Court

p. 27

The refusal to allow the Gurugram property as substitute security was held to be a valid exercise of judicial discretion, not an error of law, especially since the property was under mortgage until recently

p. 27, 30

The Court characterized the review petitions as a "complete abuse of the process of law" designed to delay the execution of an admitted liability

p. 31