Synopsis

The review petitioners (a judgment debtor airline) sought review of an order dated 18.03.2026, which had dismissed their application for modification of an earlier order directing deposit of ₹144.51 crores. The petitioners had sought permission to substitute their property as security instead of cash deposit. The High Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that: (i) no error apparent on the face of the record was made out; (ii) the financial distress and subsequent geo‑political events (West Asia hostilities) were not grounds for review; (iii) the petitioners were constantly defying the orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court, and the review petitions amounted to an abuse of process. Costs of ₹50,000 were imposed.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad (Single Judge)

Date of Decision: 4th May 2026

Citation: Review Pet. 167/2026 & Review Pet. 148/2026 in O.M.P. (COMM) 42/2019 & 43/2019 (2026:DHC:3791)

Core Law: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 (review); Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 36 (execution of award).

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Review pet. 167 of 2026, i.a. 10257 of 2026 in o.m.p. (comm)-42 of 2019 and review pet.148 of 2026 in o.m.p. (comm)-43 of 2019

Spicejet limited & anr (review petitioners) vs. Kal airways pvt ltd & ors (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice subramonium prasad

Date: 4th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – section 114 (review), order xlvii rule 1 (grounds for review)

• Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – sections 34 (challenge to award), 36 (execution of award)

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.