Latest news with #LimitationAct
The Star
a day ago
- Business
- The Star
‘Umno took RM16mil donation without knowing SRC's affairs'
KUALA LUMPUR: Umno had received RM16mil as a donation and contribution from a subsidiary of SRC International Sdn Bhd 10 years ago without prior knowledge of what transpired in the company, the High Court heard. Lawyer Mohamed Shahrul Fazli Kamarulzaman, who appeared for the party, said in his submission that Umno did not have the requisite knowledge that the RM16mil, received from Jendela Pinggiran Sdn Bhd (JPSB), was a result of a breach of duty or trust by the company's former directors, especially SRC's former chief executive officer Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil. 'Umno was a bona fide recipient of the RM16mil, and the sum was spent and used by Umno for activities and programmes that were CSR (corporate social responsibility) in nature. 'It is unjust to allow for restitution against Umno and Umno will suffer injustice if it is called to repay the amount to the plaintiffs,' Mohamed Shahrul said. He also argued that the claim against Umno was time-barred by the statute of limitation provided under Section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act. He said Umno received the RM16mil in April 2015 and the plaintiffs contended that the purported wrongful disbursement of the sum was only discovered by the new management in 2019, but there was no evidence to substantiate the claim. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs' lawyer Razlan Hadri Zulkifli submitted that Umno had not proven its case that the money was used for political reasons as there was no evidence to support the claim. He said evidence before the court had shown that the source of the money was SRC, and that Umno was not entitled to it. In May 2021, SRC and its two subsidiaries – JPSB and Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd – filed two separate lawsuits against Umno and Selangor Umno. In the lawsuit against Umno, the plaintiffs are seeking RM16mil, which they claim was wrongfully transferred to the party, asserting that Umno had no basis to receive the funds. The second lawsuit involves a claim for RM3.5mil against Selangor Umno, which is also alleged to have received the funds improperly. The hearing continues before Justice Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan tomorrow.
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Court orders not followed unless officials summoned, observes HC
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has observed that court orders are not being followed even after issuance of contempt notice unless the personal appearance of the officer concerned is ordered by the court. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court made the observation on July 21. (FILE PHOTO) A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh made this observation on July 21. The court was hearing a special appeal filed by the State of U.P. through its additional chief secretary, the department of basic education and others against the respondent Jai Singh and others. 'The attitude of the officers, in ignoring the orders passed by the court till such time that notices in the contempt petition are issued, cannot be approved. On many occasions, despite issuance of notices in contempt petition, no action is taken and it is only when the directions are issued for personal presence that for the first time, the officers care for the orders passed by the Court. There are hardly any appeals which are filed without application seeking condonation of delay, which conduct on part of the appellants cannot be appreciated/encouraged,' the high court observed. The court was dealing with a special appeal filed by the state against the order of a single-judge whereby the state was directed to permit respondents to continue in employment in the department along with payment of arrears of salary. The state filed an appeal against the said order with a delay of 345 days. In the application for condonation of delay, administrative reasons were given for justifying filing the appeal late. It was requested that the delay was unintentional, genuine and bona fide. The respondent, in his objection, pleaded that the story by the state was concocted. It was argued that cognizance of the order was taken for the first time after six months. The court observed that though after the judgment was passed, the state claimed to have sought opinions of standing counsel and chief standing counsel, no such opinion or request seeking opinion was placed on record. It also observed that the delay in seeking and providing opinions and the need for second opinions was not explained. The court said, 'In the entire affidavit, there is no intention to indicate the sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay, only formality of indicating dates has been fulfilled and thereafter, sermons on the working of the Government have been indicated that it took time in completing the administrative formalities by following certain norms and procedure of 'disciplined and systematic performance of official functions' and that among the several factors on which depend the time consumed in process, there are 'certain unavoidable and unspoken circumstances.' The court observed that the limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act was being taken for granted by the State and the appellants approached the high court only after notices were issued in the contempt petition filed by the respondents. Declining to accept the delay condonation application, the court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
Mint
7 days ago
- Business
- Mint
SpiceJet shares surge 6% as Supreme Court rejects Maran, KAL Airways' plea seeking ₹1,323 crore damages
Shares of low-cost carrier SpiceJet soared 6 percent in intra-day trading on Wednesday, July 23, after the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions filed by Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways in a long-running legal dispute. The apex court upheld the Delhi High Court's decision to reject their ₹ 1,323 crore damages claim against the airline, providing much-needed legal relief to the financially stressed carrier. A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar dismissed the special leave petitions filed by KAL Airways and its promoter Kalanithi Maran, effectively closing the door on their efforts to seek damages from SpiceJet over a failed share transfer deal. "Both the special leave petitions are dismissed," the court stated, marking a definitive end to the appeal process. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had declined to condone a 55-day delay in filing and a 226-day delay in re-filing the appeal, citing what it called a 'calculated gamble' by the appellants and accusing them of deliberately concealing facts from the court and SpiceJet. The concept of condonation of delay is governed by the Limitation Act, which typically allows 90 days to file an appeal; any delay beyond that requires a credible explanation—something the courts said was lacking in this case. The dispute originated in 2015 when Maran and KAL Airways transferred their 58.46 percent controlling stake in SpiceJet to its original founder Ajay Singh. The transfer came at a time when the airline was facing a severe financial crisis, prompting Singh to take over operations and liabilities. Maran and KAL later claimed they had paid for convertible warrants and preference shares worth over ₹ 1,300 crore, which they alleged were never issued. The case went into arbitration, where an initial ruling favoured KAL Airways. However, the Delhi High Court subsequently set aside the arbitral award, a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2024. Following this, KAL Airways and Maran attempted to revive their damages claim through the High Court and later the apex court—both of which rejected their appeals. According to legal news platform Bar and Bench, the Supreme Court found the appellants' conduct to be lacking in good faith and part of a deliberate litigation strategy, rather than a result of negligence or delay. SpiceJet had earlier welcomed the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that a panel of three retired Supreme Court judges had already examined and rejected the damages claim. The airline reiterated that Maran's repeated attempts to revive the case amounted to judicial overreach. The ruling comes at a time when SpiceJet is grappling with financial stress and a shrinking market share amid multiple operational challenges. As of March 2025, the airline reported a net worth of ₹ 683 crore, supported by a ₹ 500 crore equity infusion from its promoter group, which included ₹ 294 crore added in the March quarter. The airline has also entered strategic partnerships with StandardAero and Carlyle Aviation to accelerate engine overhauls and fleet expansion. As part of its summer schedule, SpiceJet launched 24 new domestic flights and added new destinations such as Dehradun, Porbandar, and Tuticorin. By the end of 2025, the airline aims to operate a fleet of 52 aircraft, most of which will be leased on wet or dry terms. Following the Supreme Court verdict, SpiceJet shares rose as much as 6 percent to an intra-day high of ₹ 40.42. However, the stock remains over 49 percent below its 52-week high of ₹ 79.90, touched in September 2024. It recently hit a 52-week low of ₹ 37.87 earlier this month. Over the past year, the stock has declined by 30 percent. The share price has remained under pressure in 2025, falling 12 percent in June and 6.4 percent in May. While April saw a brief recovery with an 8.4 percent gain, the preceding months were also negative—down 11.8 percent in January, 6 percent in February, and 3.4 percent in March. July so far has seen a marginal decline of 0.3 percent.
Mint
7 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Supreme Court dismisses Maran's plea seeking ₹1,323 crore damages from SpiceJet
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways challenging a Delhi High Court order that had rejected their claim seeking ₹ 1,323 crore in damages from SpiceJet. A bench of Justices P. S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar refused to interfere with the high court's decision. SpiceJet shares shot up nearly 7% in noon trading post the apex court's decision, and we at ₹ 40.71 apiece on BSE. The Sensex was up 0.42%. Maran and KAL Airways had challenged the Delhi High Court's 23 May order that had dismissed their appeals due to delays. The division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul had refused to condone a 55-day delay in filing and a 226-day delay in re-filing their appeals, calling their conduct a 'calculated gamble' and accusing them of deliberately concealing information from the court and SpiceJet. Condonation of delay refers to seeking the court's permission to file a case or appeal after the legal deadline has lapsed. Under the Limitation Act, parties typically have 90 days to file an appeal from a single judge's decision to a division bench. If they miss this deadline, they must explain the delay to seek condonation, which the Delhi High Court did not accept in this case. In 2015, Maran and KAL Airways transferred their entire stake in SpiceJet to Ajay Singh for a nominal ₹ 2 amid a financial crisis that had nearly shut the airline. As part of the deal, Singh, who became SpiceJet's chairman and managing director, took over liabilities worth ₹ 1,500 crore. Maran and KAL Airways had also paid ₹ 679 crore to SpiceJet for issuing convertible warrants and preference shares. However, these were never issued under Singh's management, prompting Maran to approach the Delhi High Court in 2017 seeking a refund. In July 2018, an arbitration panel of three retired Supreme Court judges rejected Maran's claim for ₹ 1,323 crore in damages but ordered a refund of ₹ 579 crore plus interest. Both sides challenged parts of this award under the Arbitration Act in the Delhi High Court. In 2023, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh upheld the arbitral award, directing SpiceJet and Singh to refund ₹ 308 crore for warrants and ₹ 270 crore for preference shares, along with applicable interest. SpiceJet challenged this ruling before a division bench. In May 2024, the division bench granted relief to SpiceJet by remanding the case to the single judge for fresh consideration, putting the ₹ 270 crore refund on hold. Maran and KAL Airways approached the Supreme Court against this remand decision, but their plea was dismissed in July 2024. They then refiled their long-pending appeals against the single judge's 2023 order, leading to the high court division bench's May 2025 dismissal due to delays. In a stock exchange filing on 26 May, SpiceJet welcomed the high court's decision.
Mint
7 days ago
- Business
- Mint
SpiceJet shares surge 6% as Supreme Court rejects Maran, KAL Airways' plea seeking ₹1,323 crore damages
Shares of low-cost carrier SpiceJet soared 6 percent in intra-day trading on Wednesday, July 23, after the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions filed by Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways in a long-running legal dispute. The apex court upheld the Delhi High Court's decision to reject their ₹ 1,323 crore damages claim against the airline, providing much-needed legal relief to the financially stressed carrier. A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar dismissed the special leave petitions filed by KAL Airways and its promoter Kalanithi Maran, effectively closing the door on their efforts to seek damages from SpiceJet over a failed share transfer deal. "Both the special leave petitions are dismissed," the court stated, marking a definitive end to the appeal process. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had declined to condone a 55-day delay in filing and a 226-day delay in re-filing the appeal, citing what it called a 'calculated gamble' by the appellants and accusing them of deliberately concealing facts from the court and SpiceJet. The concept of condonation of delay is governed by the Limitation Act, which typically allows 90 days to file an appeal; any delay beyond that requires a credible explanation—something the courts said was lacking in this case. The dispute originated in 2015 when Maran and KAL Airways transferred their 58.46 percent controlling stake in SpiceJet to its original founder Ajay Singh. The transfer came at a time when the airline was facing a severe financial crisis, prompting Singh to take over operations and liabilities. Maran and KAL later claimed they had paid for convertible warrants and preference shares worth over ₹ 1,300 crore, which they alleged were never issued. The case went into arbitration, where an initial ruling favoured KAL Airways. However, the Delhi High Court subsequently set aside the arbitral award, a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2024. Following this, KAL Airways and Maran attempted to revive their damages claim through the High Court and later the apex court—both of which rejected their appeals. According to legal news platform Bar and Bench, the Supreme Court found the appellants' conduct to be lacking in good faith and part of a deliberate litigation strategy, rather than a result of negligence or delay. SpiceJet had earlier welcomed the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that a panel of three retired Supreme Court judges had already examined and rejected the damages claim. The airline reiterated that Maran's repeated attempts to revive the case amounted to judicial overreach. The ruling comes at a time when SpiceJet is grappling with financial stress and a shrinking market share amid multiple operational challenges. As of March 2025, the airline reported a net worth of ₹ 683 crore, supported by a ₹ 500 crore equity infusion from its promoter group, which included ₹ 294 crore added in the March quarter. The airline has also entered strategic partnerships with StandardAero and Carlyle Aviation to accelerate engine overhauls and fleet expansion. As part of its summer schedule, SpiceJet launched 24 new domestic flights and added new destinations such as Dehradun, Porbandar, and Tuticorin. By the end of 2025, the airline aims to operate a fleet of 52 aircraft, most of which will be leased on wet or dry terms. Following the Supreme Court verdict, SpiceJet shares rose as much as 6 percent to an intra-day high of ₹ 40.42. However, the stock remains over 49 percent below its 52-week high of ₹ 79.90, touched in September 2024. It recently hit a 52-week low of ₹ 37.87 earlier this month. Over the past year, the stock has declined by 30 percent. The share price has remained under pressure in 2025, falling 12 percent in June and 6.4 percent in May. While April saw a brief recovery with an 8.4 percent gain, the preceding months were also negative—down 11.8 percent in January, 6 percent in February, and 3.4 percent in March. July so far has seen a marginal decline of 0.3 percent. Disclaimer: The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, and not of Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
