SpiceJet shares were trading flat at Rs. 62.70 apiece on Monday even as the low-cost carrier's appeal against a Delhi High Court order to deposit Rs. 579 crore in a share transfer dispute is scheduled to come up for hearing (on Monday).
A single-judge bench of the court had, on July 29, asked SpiceJet to pay the amount in the context of a share transfer dispute between the company and its former owners â€” KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Kalanithi Maran, non-executive chairperson of KAL Airways.
"The company has preferred an appeal in the matter which was listed before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi today (i.e. August 5, 2016) and the court has directed the same to be listed on August 8, 2016 for hearing the appeal," SpiceJet informed the BSE last Friday.
The July 29 order said that SpiceJet will have to pay the sum in five equal monthly instalments starting from Aug. 7, 2016.
Ajay Singh, the current CMD of SpiceJet, took control of the carrier in February 2015 when the then owners of the company â€” KAL and Maran â€” transferred 58.46 percent shares of SpiceJet to him.
As part of the ownership transfer, KAL Airways and Maran were supposed to receive redeemable warrants convertible into equity shares at Rs. 16.30 per share in accordance with a SpiceJet board resolution of September 2014.
Since the allotment did not happen, Maran moved the Delhi High Court. In March, Justice Manmohan Singh passed an interim order directing SpiceJet to issue the warrants.
"I am of the view that at present, there is no impediment if BSE may consider application dated September 18, 2014, in light of change of circumstances, because of the reason that earlier respondent 1 (Spicejet) did not provide clarification and now since clarification is available coupled with subsequent events, application dated September 18, 2014 can be considered by BSE...," Justice Manmohan Singh said in his order.
SpiceJet informed the stock exchanges on March 14 this year that it was unable to issue the warrants for want of statutory approvals. "The issuance of warrants was to be made subject to regulatory approvals and could not be issued due to non-receipt of the same."