Facts
SpiceJet sought, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an extension to deposit the admitted outstanding interest amount of ₹144,51,69,887 and permission to place the original title documents of its Gurugram property with the Registry as interim security.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1The Court’s order dated 13 July 2026 had recorded SpiceJet’s undertaking to deposit ₹50 crore within 45 days and the balance within 90 days; the first instalment was due by 27 August 2026 but was not paid.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, para. 9SpiceJet attributed the default to non-disbursement of an anticipated ECLGS tranche and relied on its financial difficulties and the property’s asserted unencumbered status.
Source reference: pp. 4–6, paras. 10–18The request to furnish the same property as security instead of cash had previously been rejected.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5Issues
Whether SpiceJet had shown sufficient grounds for a further extension of time to deposit the outstanding ₹144,51,69,887
Source reference: pp. 9–10, paras. 28–31Whether SpiceJet could deposit the property’s original title documents as interim security despite its failure to comply with the undertaking to deposit ₹50 crore
Source reference: p.10, paras. 30–31Law Applied
SpiceJet invoked Section 151 CPC, which preserves the court’s inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1The Court did not cite a specific precedent or formulate a separate doctrinal test for extending time. Its decision reflects the exercise of discretion in light of the prior deposit directions, SpiceJet’s undertaking, its failure to comply with the first instalment, and the need to protect the respondents’ interest in receiving the outstanding amount.
Source reference: pp. 9–10, paras. 28–31Reasoning
The Court acknowledged SpiceJet’s financial constraints but gave weight to the respondents’ interest and the history of repeated extensions.
Source reference: p.10, para. 29It reasoned that it might have considered allowing more time for the second instalment or accepting the property documents if SpiceJet had first complied with its undertaking to deposit ₹50 crore; because it had not, the asserted delay in ECLGS disbursement did not justify further indulgence.
Source reference: p.10, paras. 30–31The property-document request was also considered against the earlier rejection of the proposal to furnish the property as security.
Source reference: pp. 3, 10, paras. 5, 30–31Holding
The Court dismissed the application. It refused both a further extension to deposit the outstanding amount and permission to deposit the Gurugram property’s title documents as security, principally because SpiceJet had failed to make the ₹50 crore deposit required by its own undertaking.
Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Civil Procedure, 19081
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961
Original Court PDF
Spicejet LimitedvsKal Airways Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
