The Supreme Court on January 31, 2026, declined to intervene in the Delhi High Court's rejection of SpiceJet's request to replace a Rs 144 crore deposit with immovable property in its dispute with former promoter Kalanithi Maran.

The bench, comprising P. S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, advised the airline to seek appropriate relief from the High Court concerning the payment schedule.

The judges noted that while they were not inclined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order, the High Court might reconsider the matter in light of recent developments, including the ongoing West Asia situation and the Centre-backed Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) for airlines.

During the hearing, SpiceJet highlighted that the continuing crisis in West Asia was adversely affecting its operations and financial standing. The airline also referenced the ECLGS scheme to request relief in the payment schedule for dues arising from the arbitral award.

The dispute originated from execution proceedings related to an arbitral award favouring Kal Airways Pvt Ltd and Kalanithi Maran. These proceedings are being heard alongside SpiceJet and its Chairman and Managing Director, Ajay Singh's, challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Previously, the Supreme Court had dismissed SpiceJet's challenge to the Delhi High Court's January 19, 2026 order directing the airline to deposit Rs 144 crore under the arbitral award. Subsequently, SpiceJet and Ajay Singh sought the High Court's permission to substitute the cash deposit with immovable property. The High Court rejected this plea on March 18, 2026, and dismissed the review petition on May 4, 2026.