Sahara, Jet tell HC they will meet to sort out issues

Jet Airways and Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd, locked in a legal battle over multi-crore rupees takeover deal of erstwhile Sahara airline, today informed the Bombay High Court that they would meet soon to sort out their issues.

The court adjourned the matter to May 6 after Jet lawyer Janak Dwarkadas and Sahara counsel Fali Nariman said both the sides would meet as per the suggestion of the court to sort out the issues between them.

Two days ago, the court had asked Jet and Sahara to sit together and sort out their differences. It also allowed Jet to give on dry lease three aircraft to Turkish Airlines -- two from June 25 and one from July 25.

On March 31, the court had restrained Jet Airways from creating any third party interest on their assets including 40 aircraft, until its dispute with Sahara was settled.

Sahara India said Jet was liable to pay Rs 2,000 crore instead of the renegotiated amount of Rs 1,450 crore for the buyout of erstwhile Sahara airline, now Jetlite.

The price was brought down to Rs 1,450 crore provided Jet would not default on payment. But it defaulted and so the concession on takeover deal was not tenable.

Jet bought Sahara Airlines from the Sahara Group in April 2007 for Rs 1,450 crore after an arbitration award. It paid Rs 900 crore and agreed to pay the balance in four installments.

Jet Airways contended that in March 2008 the Income Tax department demanded tax dues of Rs 107 crore from Sahara India Airlines. According to Jet, this amount was due from Sahara Group as it pertained to the period before the acquisition.

While paying Sahara the installment of Rs 137 crore last March, Jet deducted Rs 37 crore against the IT dues. This year too, Jet deducted Rs 50 crore on the same account. Jet said that Sahara has now taken a stand that it is not liable to pay the I-T dues.

Earlier, Sahara had secured order from the High Court to attach the movable properties of Jet Airways. However, Jet moved the court to stay the order. The court stopped further attachment, but said that the properties already attached would remain unaffected.