On August 17, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) postponed the hearing of three insolvency claims made against SpiceJet by aircraft lessors.
SpiceJet has contested the validity of Aircastle’s initial insolvency filing, for which a notice had been sent out in May. The low-cost airline had claimed that the plea was unmaintainable and had technical flaws. SpiceJet asked for more time to file a reply to Aircastle’s response after the latter had contested the maintainability of SpiceJet’s application in a response filed on August 16.
Currently, the case has been postponed till September 11.
Aircastle brought a second insolvency claim against SpiceJet in June 2023. The second insolvency petition filed by the aircraft lessor against SpiceJet was called into question by NCLT. The panel had questioned Aircastle’s attorney to justify the plea’s upkeep in light of specific legal precedents.
The attorney for Aircastle asserted today that a second insolvency plea was in fact maintainable by citing specific judgements. SpiceJet, however, objected to the same and asked for more time to refute Aircastle’s claim. As a result, the tribunal postponed the case.
Currently, the case has been postponed until August 18.
In order to resolve some technical concerns that have come up in his plea, Celestial Aviation’s attorney told the NCLT that he needed more time. He testified in court that Celestial Aviation was owed $29 million by SpiceJet.
The panel postponed hearing to September 11 and asked the parties to resolve the matter without resorting to litigation.
Lessors brought a total of five insolvency claims against SpiceJet. Aircastle, a lessor of aircraft, has submitted two pleas, Wilmington, a single plea, and Celestial, and Willis Lease Finance, each a single plea.
There are various hearing phases for each plea. However, only one plea has received attention.
Aircastle’s initial petition was given notice by the NCLT on May 8 and the airline was asked to respond. In response, SpiceJet filed a response to the petition, and on May 25, Aircastle requested a brief adjournment so that it could reply to the carrier. SpiceJet then submitted a request challenging the validity of Aircastle’s insolvency plea. The airline also questioned the maintainability of Wilmington’s and Aircastle’s pleas of insolvency.
