Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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