Vague Allegations Of Infidelity And Harassment Without Cogent Evidence Do Not Amount To Cruelty For Divorce: Telangana High Court Supreme Court Introduces 'Periodic Review' Mechanism For Monitoring Contumacious Advocates Supreme Court Suspends Criminal Contempt Conviction Of Yatin Oza; Invokes Article 142 To Grant 'Final Act Of Forgiveness' With Periodic Conduct Review Court Must Adopt Parental Temperament While Disciplining Bar Members; SC Suspends Yatin Oza’s Contempt Conviction As ‘Final Act Of Forgiveness’ Conviction Can Be Based On Testimony Of Solitary Witness Of Sterling Quality; Indian Law Values Quality Over Quantity Of Evidence: Supreme Court Authorities Can't Turn A Blind Eye To Illegal Constructions; Must Follow Due Process For Demolition: Telangana High Court Section 506 IPC Charges Liable To Be Quashed If Threat Lacks 'Intent To Cause Alarm' To Complainant: Supreme Court SC/ST Act Offences Not Made Out If Alleged Abuse Occurs Inside Private Residence Without Public Presence: Supreme Court Election Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio After Passing Final Order; Cannot Later Declare New Result Based On Recount: Supreme Court Remarriage Contracted Immediately After Divorce Decree Before Expiry Of Limitation Period Has No Validity In Law: Telangana High Court Lack Of Notice For Spot Inspection Under Stamp Act Is An Irregularity, Not Illegality If No Prejudice Caused: Allahabad High Court Mutation Entry In Revenue Records Does Not Create Or Extinguish Title; Succession To Agricultural Land Governed Strictly By Statute: Delhi High Court Children Shouldn't Be Deprived Of Parental Affection Due To Matrimonial Disputes; Courts Must Ensure Child Isn't Tutored: Andhra Pradesh High Court 138 NI Act | Wife Of Sole Proprietor Not Vicariously Liable For Dishonoured Cheque She Didn't Sign: Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings State Cannot Profit From Its Own Delay In Deciding Land Tenure Conversion Applications: Gujarat High Court Owner Of Establishment Cannot Evade Liability Under Employees’ Compensation Act By Shifting Responsibility To Manager: Bombay High Court Developer Assigning Only Leasehold Rights Via Sub-Lease Not A 'Promoter', Project Doesn't Require RERA Registration: Allahabad High Court Court Cannot Be Oblivious To Juveniles Used By Organized Syndicates To Commit Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To CCL Conviction For Assaulting Public Servant Sustainable Based On Victim's Testimony & Medical Evidence Even If Eye-Witnesses Turn Hostile: Bombay High Court

Delhi High Court Orders SpiceJet to Return Leased Engines to French Firms After Payment Defaults, Rejects Jurisdiction Challenge

14 October 2024 3:05 PM

By: sayum


On September 11, 2024, the Delhi High Court, in FAO(OS) (COMM) 181/2024 & 182/2024, directed SpiceJet Limited to ground and return three aircraft engines leased from Team France 01 SAS and Sunbird France 02 SAS after the airline defaulted on payments under an interim settlement. The court rejected SpiceJet's jurisdictional challenge and allowed the French companies to repossess the engines while holding SpiceJet liable for unpaid dues exceeding USD 4.8 million.

The dispute stemmed from two lease agreements executed between SpiceJet and the French companies concerning three aircraft engines, with the agreements signed on December 14, 2018, and March 29, 2018. Following ongoing financial difficulties, Team France 01 SAS and Sunbird France 02 SAS initiated lawsuits in December 2023, seeking repossession of the engines due to non-payment of lease dues by SpiceJet.

Despite a court-approved settlement on May 29, 2024, which allowed SpiceJet to continue using the engines subject to a structured payment schedule, the airline consistently defaulted. The French companies moved the court again in July 2024, citing further defaults and seeking immediate repossession of the engines.

Jurisdiction: SpiceJet contended that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction, as the lease agreements designated English courts as the exclusive forum for dispute resolution. The airline argued that the proceedings should be governed by English law.

Non-Payment of Dues: The central issue was SpiceJet's failure to make payments as agreed in the May 2024 settlement, which justified the French firms’ demand for repossession of the engines.

Pre-Litigation Mediation and Stamping: SpiceJet further argued that the agreements were not properly stamped under Indian law and that the French companies had not complied with the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The court rejected SpiceJet’s jurisdictional argument, stating that since the engines were physically located in India, the Delhi High Court had the authority to order repossession and enforce the payment schedule. The court clarified that while the lease agreements included provisions for English jurisdiction, the repossession and export of engines could be adjudicated under Indian law where the assets were located.

SpiceJet was found in breach of the payment terms set forth in May 2024, with unpaid dues exceeding USD 1.3 million as of July 2024. As a result, the court ordered SpiceJet to return the engines to the French companies within 15 days, while remaining liable for all outstanding payments under the lease.

This judgment reaffirms the authority of Indian courts to exercise jurisdiction over assets located within India, even when lease agreements include foreign jurisdiction clauses. SpiceJet faces the immediate task of complying with the court order to return the engines while remaining liable for dues under the court-approved settlement. The decision sets an important precedent for the enforceability of cross-border leases and the jurisdictional authority of Indian courts in similar cases.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2024.

SpiceJet Limited vs. Team France 01 SAS & Sunbird France 02 SAS

Latest Legal News