Delhi High Court - Orders
Spicejet Ltd vs Airports Authority Of India & Anr on 28 July, 2021
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9864/2020 & CM APPLs.31480/2020(interim),
16762/2021(early hearing)
SPICEJET LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advs with
Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Mr.Arshdeep Singh, Mr.
Hitesh Rai, Mr. Praful Jindal, Mr. Sanjeevi
Seshadri, Ms. Aakashi Lodha & Mr. Viplav
Acharya, Advs.
Versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Digvijay Rai with Mr.Aman
Yadav, Advs for R-1.
Mr.Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Asheesh Jain
CGSC, Mr.Adarsh Kr Gupta, Adv for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 28.07.2021 CM APPL 14505/2021
1. The present application has been filed by the respondent no.1 seeking discharge from an earlier oral undertaking given by its counsel to this Court whereby the respondent no.1 had agreed not to invoke the bank guarantee in question till the next date.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said oral undertaking was given under a bonafide belief that the petitioner will Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:29.07.2021 14:53:06 make serious efforts for reconciliation of the account and expeditiously make substantial payment towards their outstanding dues. He submits that the petitioner has, till date, not paid any further amount towards the outstanding dues and therefore, the respondent no.1 is no longer willing to continue with its undertaking not to invoke the bank guarantee.
3. Though, the application has been vehemently opposed, the petitioner itself admits that it owes a sum of Rs. 110.39 cores to the respondent no.1 besides a sum of Rs. 18.58 cores towards TDS. The petitioner also does not deny that it has made no further payments to the respondent no.1 during the pendency of the present petition. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the respondent no.1 is justified in seeking to withdraw its oral undertaking given by its lawyer to this Court on 04.12.2020. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 stands discharged from the oral undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
4. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9864/2020 & CM APPL.31480/2020
5. The present petition has been filed by M/s. Spicejet Limited primarily seeking a direction to the respondent no.1 not to invoke the bank guarantees tendered by the petitioner as a security for the credit facilities being availed by it towards landing, parking and other facilities provided by respondents no.1 at the various airports managed by it.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:29.07.2021 14:53:06 respondent no. 1's credit policy dated 01.04.2019 (as amended on 23.07.2020) even though the respondent no.1 is entitled to require the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to two months' average billing, the same cannot be encashed as long as the credit being availed by the petitioner is within the limit of 75% of the amount covered by the bank guarantee. He submits that as on date as per the respondent no.1, a sum of Rs.134.05 crores is payable towards the principal amount, whereas, according to the petitioner the outstanding principal amount is only Rs.110.39 crores after adjusting a sum of Rs.18.58 crores payable towards TDS as also the sum of Rs.4.53 crores, which has been paid by the petitioner subsequently.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 vehemently disputes the aforesaid position and submits that besides the principal sum of Rs.134.05 crores, the petitioner is also liable to pay about Rs.52 crores towards interest at the rate agreed upon between the parties, for which purpose, he draws my attention to the letter dated 25.01.2021 addressed by the said respondent to the petitioner.
8. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within three weeks.
9. Keeping in view the fact that the parties are at variance as to whether the outstanding amount is more than 75% of the amount secured by the bank guarantee, it is directed that subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.20 crores to respondent no.1 towards its outstanding dues, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner till the next date and the bank guarantees in question will not be encashed unless they Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:29.07.2021 14:53:06 are required in respect of any other dues. This order will, however, not preclude the parties from attempting to reconcile the accounts, if they so deem it appropriate.
10. List on 23.09.2021.
REKHA PALLI, J JULY 28, 2021 sr Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:29.07.2021 14:53:06