The Supreme Court, in a recent development, has granted low-cost airline SpiceJet a six-month timeframe within which to address a longstanding financial dispute that has ensnared the airline and Credit Suisse. This protracted dispute revolves around outstanding dues amounting to $3 million.
A spokesperson for SpiceJet expressed, "The Hon’ble Supreme Court has acknowledged our adherence to its prior directives and has concurred with our proposition to settle the $3 million in arrears over the ensuing 6 months."
This development is indeed positive for the company and all our stakeholders, and we extend our gratitude to the Court for its understanding," the spokesperson added.
Moreover, the spokesperson reaffirmed the airline's commitment to fulfilling its obligations entirely and punctually. "We remain unwavering in our dedication to upholding the highest standards of compliance and eagerly anticipate sustaining our constructive engagement with all stakeholders," the SpiceJet spokesperson emphasized.
During an earlier court hearing this month, the Supreme Court had issued a stern warning to SpiceJet, cautioning of 'stringent action' if it failed to settle its outstanding dues to Credit Suisse.
Credit Suisse and SpiceJet have been embroiled in a legal battle since 2015, with Credit Suisse asserting unpaid dues amounting to approximately $24 million. This ongoing dispute culminated in a Madras High Court ruling in 2021 that ordered the liquidation of the airline.
In response to the high court's decision, the Supreme Court intervened temporarily, suspending the liquidation proceedings and facilitating negotiations between the two parties in an effort to reach an amicable resolution. By August 2022, both Credit Suisse and SpiceJet had informed the Supreme Court that they had successfully negotiated a settlement agreement.
However, in March, Credit Suisse resurrected the matter before the Supreme Court, seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against SpiceJet and its director, Ajay Singh. Credit Suisse alleged "a deliberate and intentional violation" of court orders and non-payment of $3.9 million in accordance with the previously agreed settlement.
Â
