Delhi HC asks SpiceJet to respond to execution petition on engines return

The Delhi High Court on Monday asked low-cost airline SpiceJet to file its reply to a petition seeking execution of an order directing it to ground three aircraft engines and hand those over to their lessors.

The court also asked the airline to file an affidavit listing out its assets and posted the execution petition for further hearing on November 13.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also issued a court notice to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), with a direction to its competent officer to remain present in the court on November 13, along with a status report confirming due compliance of the court's August 14 order.

 

The court said in its status report, the DGCA will mention the status of the re-delivery of the engines.

The high court had, in its August 14 order, directed SpiceJet to ground the three engines by August 16 and hand those over to their lessors within 15 days.

The single-judge bench had directed the airline to offer prior inspection of the engines to the lessors -- Team France 01 SAS and Sunbird France 02 SAS -- through their authorised representatives at the Delhi airport within seven days.

SpiceJet had challenged the order before a division bench of the high court, which upheld the decision. Later, the Supreme Court also upheld the high court's order.

On Monday, SpiceJet's counsel submitted that they are ready to hand over the engines but for returning those, a technical device called engine stand is required to be procured.

"We are not using the engines but it will take approximately 30 days at our end to procure those stands. If they (lessors) can procure it sooner, they are at liberty to do so," senior advocate Amit Sibal, appearing in the court on behalf of SpiceJet, said.

The submission was opposed by senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao, who represented the lessors in the matter. He said the airline was aware since August 14 that there was a direction for re-delivery of the engines and their inaction in procuring the engine stands till date cannot be countenanced.

The court granted liberty to the lessors to procure an engine stand at an earlier date at the risk and cost of the airline.

"It is a matter of record that there was no stay granted to the judgment debtor (airline) after the August 14 order and the order of the division bench is also of September 11 and there is no explanation on record by the judgment debtor for not making arrangements for an engine stand unit after the passing of the September 11 judgment," it said.

Regarding the direction in the August 14 order for an inspection of the engines, SpiceJet's counsel said the airline will ensure that the inspection is offered to the lessors on or before October 7, subject to the lessors providing the names of their representatives during the course of the day.

He said the directions for re-delivery of the engines, in accordance with the August 14 order, will be complied with.

The lessors' counsel said since the directions in the August 14 order, which were upheld by the high court's division bench and the Supreme Court, were not complied with by the airline within the time granted in the order, the lessors have sent two e-mails to DGCA officials.

However, no response has been received from the DGCA, the lawyer said.

The single-judge bench passed the August 14 order on pleas moved by the lessors seeking a direction to SpiceJet to hand over the possession of the three engines on the termination of the lease agreements.

It was stated in the pleas that following the termination, the plaintiffs had directed the airline to ground and re-deliver the engines and pay all outstanding dues, but the carrier had failed to do so.

"It is, however, clarified that the defendant will remain liable for making payments, which it undertook in an order dated May 29, 2024, towards the admitted outstanding of USD 4.8 million and towards the weekly payments arising on account of the use of the engines under the aegis of this court.

"The return of the engines does not absolve the defendant from its liability for the payments, which have admittedly fallen due, and to that extent the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant through execution of the order dated May 29, 2024," the court had said.