SpiceJet prefers appeal against order to wind up company for non-payment of $24 million to Swiss firm
Water Carrier Spicejet Limited prefers to appeal before the division bench from Madras High Court challenges the order of December 6, 200 December to end the company for non-payment of more than $ 24 million to Swiss companies that maintain, repair and remodel the aircraft engine, and components.
Hakes Paresc Upadhyay and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup is, on Wednesday, informed by Senior Advisor V. Ramakrishnan, representing Spicejet, that the company has fulfilled a single judge’s direction to deposit the amount equivalent to $ 5 million to keep orders and activate air operators to rise appeal.
After recording the submission and heard the preliminary argument forward by him and Advocate Rahul Balaji representing the Credit Suisse AG, a Zurich-based stock company that had been assigned to receive payment due to the SR technique, the judges delayed it for Thursday for further hearing.
In its submission, the CPC General Civil Aviation between January 1, 2009 and May 18, 2015.
“This is something horrendous, surprising, and very, very serious and so we stop paying,” said the senior advisor and argued that the single judge had done two mistakes. First of all the single judge assumed that Spicejet had signed an agreement despite knowing about the absence of DGCA approval. Such assumptions are based on the arbitration process held between two companies in London. Second, the judge wondered why Spicejet did not end the agreement with Swiss companies even if it could be assumed that knowing about failure to get DGCA approval in the middle.
“It’s like asking why I didn’t divorce my wife, why would I stay with him. Termination is not a mandatory requirement. We don’t realize my discrepancy , “Advisor said.
He also argues that “illegal claims” for contributions will not fall below the ‘debt’ definition under the Company’s law and thus calling for the company’s orders.
On the other hand, Belaji said, Spicejet could not deny the existence of invoices and certificates of reception as well. The “spicejet) argument such as wine which they think will increase with age. Not one document released for me by them during the agreement period stating that I am not authorized and they will not pay me,” he said.
