Comments
The Additional District Court in Jabalpur has dismissed SpiceJet's plea for an interim injunction against the Airports Authority of India (AAI). The court said that SpiceJet could not ask AAI to remit damages of some ₹30 crore against its own pending dues worth ₹160 to the airports’ regulator.
In his March 23 order, additional district judge Amit Sisodia said that SpiceJet “failed to prove prima facie case in its favour.”
SpiceJet filed a case claiming ₹29.70 crore for loss of business and revenue forthe period during which its aircraft was damaged and grounded, including other financial losses arising out of and in association with the accident along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till realization.
The order noted that “the prima facie case, balance of convenience and point of irreparable loss is not proved in favour of Plaintiff No 6 (SpiceJet). Therefore, the temporary injunction application filed by applicant/plaintiff No 6 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 IA no. 1/2021 dated 22-02-2021, is dismissed.” It said that SpiceJet will have to bear the costs of the application.
The application was filed by SpiceJet in the pending matter of National Insurance Company and others versus the Airports Authority of India in Jabalpur. The matter dates back to 2017 when a SpiceJet aircraft skidded and met with an accident at Jabalpur airport.
The SpiceJet aircraft was insured with the National Insurance Company who then filed a case against AAI seeking damages for loss of business and revenue for the period during which SpiceJet's aircraft was damaged and grounded, including other financial losses arising out of the accident.
As per a proposal submitted by SpiceJet for clearing dues to AAI, it would pay and/or enhance bank guarantee suitably so that the outstanding principal amount (which is ₹145.74 crore as on November 30, 2020) is within 75 per cent of the bank guarantee threshold before March 31, 2021.
In its application to the court, SpiceJet had sought a stay on possible encashment of bank guarantee. But, this too was dismissed by the court.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.