IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

:

10.01.2022

Pronounced on

:

11.01.2022

CORAM

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY

and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

O.S.A.Nos. 1 to 3 of 2022

and

C.M.P.Nos. 98,88,90,94 and 95 of 2022

SpiceJet Limited

Having registered office at

Kamaraj Domestic Terminal,

Chennai Airport,

Chennai – 600 027,

Tamil Nadu

.. Appellant in all OSAs

Vs

Credit Suisse AG

A Stock Corporation

registered under the Laws of Switzerland,

Carrying on business at

8001, Zurich, Switzerland,

Rep. By its Power of Attorney Agent

Mr.Robert Pavery

.. Respondent in all OSAs

Appeals preferred under Section 483 of the Companies Act and

Clause 15 of Letters Patent read with Order 36 Rule 1 of OS

Rules against the judgment and order dated 06 December 2021, as

amended vide orders dated 15 December 2021 and 23 December 2021

in Company Petition No. 363 of 2015, C.A.No.888 of 2015 and

C.A.No.55 of 2020 respectively.

For Appellant

:

Mr.V.Ramakrishnan,

(in all OSAs)

Senior Advocate

assisted by

Mr.Ashok Menon

Mr.Varun K. Chopra

Mr.Abhinav Sharma

Mr.Sathya Ganesh

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Respondent

(in all OSAs)

:

Mr.Rahul Balaji

with

Mr.Vishnu Mohan

Mr.Aditya Bhat

Mr.Rajendra Barot

Ms.Priyanka Shetty

Mr.Ayush Chaddha

Ms.K.Janani Shankar

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Per : PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

1.

These appeals are filed by the respondent of the

Company Petition No.363 of 2015, challenging the order of

Company Court, ordering :-

(i) admission of the winding up petition, which

is filed invoking Sections 433 (e) and (f) of

the Companies Act, 1956, and

(ii) appointment of the Official Liquidator,

High Court of Madras as Provisional Liquidator.

Since, in the first order of the Company Court dated

06.12.2021, there are few corrections vide orders dated

15.12.2021 and 23.12.2021, there are three orders before us, but

the substance thereof is as noted above. The challenge in these

three appeals is to those three orders, ventilating various

grievances including about disposal / pendency of some interim

application(s) in the Company Petition.

2.1

Mr. V.Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate for the

appellant Company has addressed the Court at length. It is noted

that he has extensively taken this Court through the paper

books, running into few hundred pages. He has also relied on

number of authorities, which are quoted here below.

2.2

It is noted that various submissions are made on behalf

of the appellant, as raised as grounds of appeal(s) as mentioned

in the memo of appeals, the substance thereof is that, what the

petitioner claims, can at the best be said to be due and not the

debt. Further, there is serious dispute about that amount being

payable by the appellant to SR Technics and further that, the

said dispute is bonafide and also a substantial one. It is

therefore submitted that the winding up petition ought not to

have been admitted by the Company Court.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.3

The bone contention on behalf of the appellant is two

fold. Firstly that the documents relied by the petitioner Credit

Suisse, Switzerland are not stamped and therefore the Courts in

India will not take cognisance thereof and secondly, the

S.R.Technics did not have valid license from the Director

General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and therefore it could not have

legally maintained the Aircrafts / Engines of the appellant

Company and consequently no amount could be said to be payable

by the appellant to it and thereby there is bonafide dispute

with regard to the said payment.

2.4

Over and above this, number of submissions are made

which are less relevant for the purpose of deciding the point at

issue as noted in para 5. It is also noted that on behalf of the

appellant arguments were advanced on 05.01.2022 and 10.01.2022

for hours. Attention of the Court was invited to h