Multiple NDPS Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Custody: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail in Heroin Case Departmental Findings Based On Witnesses Discredited By Criminal Court Constitute 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Upheld Constable's Reinstatement When Pension Rules Are Capable of More Than One Interpretation, Courts Must Lean in Favour of the Employee: MP High Court Wife Left Voluntarily — But Minor Children Cannot Be Taken Away: Madras High Court Intervenes in Habeas Corpus for Two Toddlers Where Consideration Does Not Pass in Terms of the Sale Deed, the Sale Deed Is Null and Void, a Nullity and Dead Letter in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court National Award-Winning Director's Script Was Registered Two Years Before Complainant Even Wrote His — Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Kahaani-2' Director IBC Clean Slate Does Not Wipe Out Right of Set-Off as Defence: Supreme Court Draws Critical Distinction Between Counterclaim and Defensive Plea GST Assessment Challenged on Natural Justice Grounds Tagged to Criminal Writ in Supreme Court Railway Cannot Escape Compensation by Crying 'Trespass' Without Eyewitness: Bombay High Court Reverses Tribunal, Awards Rs. 4 Lakh to Widow of Rolex Employee Master Plan Cannot Be Held Hostage to Subsequent Vegetation Growth — Supreme Court Settles Deemed Forest vs. Statutory Planning Conflict Contempt | Sold Property Despite Court's Restraint Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences One Month's Imprisonment Tractor-Run-Over Death Was An Accident, Not Murder: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three Accused Fast-Tracking Cannot Bury Justice: Supreme Court Sets Aside 21-Year-Delayed Appeal Decided Without Informing Convict Panchayat Act's Demolition Powers Cease Once Plot Falls Under Development Authority's Planning Area: Calcutta High Court Actual Date Of Woman Director's Appointment A Triable Issue; Prosecution Can't Be Quashed Merely On Claims Of Compliance: Calcutta High Court A Website Cannot Whisper and Then Punish: Delhi High Court Reins in DSSSB Over E-Dossier Rejections Mutual Consent Alone Ends the Marriage: Gujarat High Court Affirms Mubarat Divorce Without Formalities State Cannot Hide Behind "Oral Consent" or Delay When It Builds Roads Through Citizens' Land Without Due Process: Himachal Pradesh HC Show Cause Notice Alone Cannot Cut a Retired Engineer's Pension: Jharkhand High Court Bovine Smuggling Is a Law and Order Problem, Not a Public Order Threat: J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Article 22(2) Constitution | Production Beyond 24 Hours Not Fatal If Delay Explained And Travel Time Excluded: Karnataka High Court Article 227 Is Not an Appellate Power: High Court Refuses to Reassess Tribunal Findings on Pension Claim: Kerala High Court High Court Cannot Call A Complaint "False And Malicious" Without First Finding It Discloses No Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court When Jurisdiction Fails, Remand Cannot Cure It: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Sending MSME Award Dispute Back to Functus Officio Facilitation Council Selling Inferior Pipes as 'Jain' or 'Jindal Gold' Brand Is Not Just a Civil Wrong — It's Cheating: MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Went to Collect Chit Fund Money, Got Arrested in Prostitution Raid: Telangana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Being Sub-Organiser Axe Blow During Sudden Quarrel Falls Under Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction To Culpable Homicide

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