MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
regular-article-logo Saturday, 28 September 2024

SC to hear SpiceJet’s plea challenging Delhi HC order grounding 3 aircraft engines

A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked the counsel for the airline to send an e-mail seeking an urgent hearing of its plea against the high court verdict of September 11

PTI New Delhi Published 13.09.24, 11:16 AM
On engine grounding order

On engine grounding order File image

The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider listing low-cost airline SpiceJet’s plea challenging a Delhi high court order that grounded three aircraft engines after the airline defaulted on payments to lessors.

A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked the counsel for the airline to send an e-mail seeking an urgent hearing of its plea against the high court verdict of September 11.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Please circulate the e-mail,” the CJI said, adding that the appeal may be listed.

A division bench of the Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that the carrier had violated an agreed interim arrangement for payment of dues and upheld an order of a single-judge bench asking the low-cost airline to ground the three engines for defaulting on the payments.

The single-judge bench of the high court had on August 14 directed SpiceJet to ground three engines by August 16 and hand them over to their lessors — Team France 01 SAS and Sunbird France 02 SAS.

A high court bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal refused to interfere with an August 14 order of the single-judge bench to ground the three aircraft engines and hand them over to the lessors, and disposed of SpiceJet’s appeals against it.

SpiceJet had challenged the August 14 order of the single-judge bench.

“The appeals are emblematic of the adage that fools create assets and wise men use them. The use of a lessor’s assets without recompense, on agreed terms, by the lessee often leads to consequences which disrupt the interests of both sides,” the high court said.

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT