SpiceJet to transfer warrants in favour of Maran

Delhi High Court today passed an interim order paving the way for issuance of stock warrants in SpiceJet to Kalanithi Maran and Kal Airways Pvt Ltd (KAL) and said that there was no impediment before BSE in considering their joint representation seeking approval of the warrant issue.

As per the plea of Sun group head Kalanithi Maran, he and KAL were to be issued stock warrants in SpiceJet by the airline under a 2015 sale purchase agreement (SPA) which led to change in ownership of the budget carrier.

Kalanithi Maran was represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal along with Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rajiv Nayar and Anirban Bhattacharya.

Read more from our special coverage on "SPICEJET"

• SpiceJet gains on hopes of warrants issue settlement
• SpiceJet hits over three-month low
• Former SpiceJet executive Sanjiv Kapoor joins Vistara
• SpiceJet commences three-day pre-summer sales
• If SpiceJet bled because of 5/20 rule, all new airlines need not

Accordingly, SpiceJet will pass a board resolution in three days time from the passing of the order and along with KAL approach the regulating bodies- BSE and SEBI for approval. "In accordance with court proceedings SpiceJet will pass a resolution within three days authorizing joint representatives to appear before BSE/SEBI to reconsider its earlier application regarding issue of warrants," Spice Jet said in a statement.

The warrants would give Maran a 24 per cent stake in the company. Under the 2015 sale purchase agreement, Maran and KAL transferred their entire 350,428,758 equity shares (58.46 per cent stake) in the airline, to Ajay Singh. According to the deal, they were to receive the redeemable warrants in return for around Rs 679 crore that they were to give to the airline towards operating costs and debt payment, the petition has claimed. 

Maran and his airline, KAL, had alleged in their plea that despite giving around Rs 579 crore to Spicejet, the carrier failed to issue them the warrants or allot them tranche one and two of Convertible Redeemable Preference Shares and the amount was not utilised for paying statutory dues due to which they were also facing prosecution.