Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana 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