SpiceJet, a low-cost airline, announced on Friday that it has paid Credit Suisse $1.5 million as per instructions from the Supreme Court. Based on a filing with the stock markets, the payment was carried out on Thursday.
In a statement on Tuesday, the airline said, “SpiceJet acknowledges the legal process and is committed to complying with all court's directives and obligations in the Credit Suisse case and will make the payment of $1.5 million as per the court directive. To date, SpiceJet has already paid a total of $8 million to Credit Suisse."
Switzerland-based Credit Suisse had requested that contempt proceedings be started against SpiceJet and its chairman and managing director Ajay Singh in March. The Swiss bank cited alleged intentional and deliberate non-compliance with court orders as well as failure to pay a debt of $3.9 million as specified in a prior settlement agreement between the parties.
SR Technics, a Swiss maintenance, repair, and overhauling (MRO) service provider, and SpiceJet, then controlled by Kalanithi Maran, signed a 10-year aircraft servicing and maintenance contract back in November 2011.
To pay the debt, SpiceJet issued seven bills of exchange in addition to the Swiss company issuing invoices. SR Technics officially granted Credit Suisse the ability to collect payments from the SpiceJet agreement in September 2012. However, the airline failed to make payments totaling over $24 million, which prompted Credit Suisse to seek the Madras High Court in 2021 to wound up SpiceJet.
A single-judge Madras High Court bench authorized SpiceJet's winding-up on December 6, 2021, by Section 433(e) of the Companies Act of 1956, and ordered the official liquidator to take control of the airline's assets. The order had been contested by the airline before a division bench. The single judge's order was sustained by the division bench.
A single-judge Madras High Court bench authorized SpiceJet's winding-up on December 6, 2021, by Section 433(e) of the Companies Act of 1956, and ordered the official liquidator to take control of the airline's assets. The order had been contested by the airline before a division bench. The single judge's order was sustained by the division bench. The airline subsequently appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which overturned the appeals court's decision and ordered the airline three weeks to resolve the conflict.
© Copyright 2023. All Rights Reserved Powered by Vygr Media.
