SC issues notices to Jet, Sahara on sellout dispute | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
May 23, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

SC issues notices to Jet, Sahara on sellout dispute

The Supreme Court today issued notices on cross appeals by Sahara India and Jet Airways challenging a Bombay high court order directing the latter to pay a renegotiated amount instead of the original determined price for purchase of Sahara Airlines (now Jetlite) in 2007.

india Updated: Dec 02, 2011 18:51 IST

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices on cross appeals by Sahara India and Jet Airways challenging a Bombay high court order directing the latter to pay a renegotiated amount instead of the original determined price for purchase of Sahara Airlines (now Jetlite) in 2007.

A bench of justice Altamas Kabir and justice SS Nijjar granted six weeks to the two parties to file their counter-affidavits and two weeks thereafter for the rejoinders.

On October 17, the high court had upheld its earlier order by a single judge asking Jet Airways to pay 9% interest on the balance amount of purchase price to Sahara.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mohit Shah and justice GS Godbole had dismissed appeals of Sahara India and Jet Airways challenging the May 5 order of the single bench of justice DY Chandrachud.

The bench had ruled that the two appeals filed by Sahara India and Jet Airways were "not maintainable" as only an SLP was maintainable against the order of the single judge.

Earlier, Jet had given an undertaking that it will not dispose of the property during the pendency of the appeal filed by Sahara.

Sahara had contended that Jet Airways was liable to pay Rs 2,000 crore, the original buyout price, instead of the renegotiated amount of Rs 1,450 crore because the latter had defaulted in paying installments by deducting income tax dues.

Both sides had agreed to the renegotiated price on condition that Jet would not default in paying installments.

Jet Airways contended that they were not liable to pay interest on balance amount at 9% as they had not defaulted in payments but had only deducted income tax dues which were liable to be paid by Sahara.