NCLT Delhi Dismisses Section 9 IBC Application Against SpiceJet — Key Findings on Section 10A, Interest Claims, and Pre-Existing Disputes
Background and Overview
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Delhi Bench, recently pronounced a significant ruling in the matter of CAPT Vs Spicejet Private Limited, dismissing a petition filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter "IBC" or "the Code") by a former Trainee Captain of SpiceJet Limited. The petition sought initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the airline on account of alleged unpaid employment dues.
The case raises three critical legal issues that frequently arise in operational creditor petitions before the NCLT:
- Whether employment dues qualify as "operational debt" under the IBC
- Whether claims falling within the
Section 10ACOVID-19 suspension window can be counted toward the statutory threshold - Whether interest claimed without a contractual basis can be included for computing the minimum default threshold
- Whether a pre-existing dispute renders the petition non-maintainable
Facts of the Case
The applicant, a Trainee Captain who had joined SpiceJet Limited pursuant to an offer letter dated 19.04.2019, claimed that substantial salary dues had remained unpaid for services rendered during the period from April 2020 to August 2022. The original terms of appointment indicated a fixed monthly compensation of Rs. 6,45,000/- per month, translating to an annual package of Rs. 77,40,000/-.
According to the applicant's own computation annexed to the petition (Annexure-4), the aggregate amount due was Rs. 1,83,18,000/-, against which SpiceJet had made payments of Rs. 69,61,556/-, leaving an alleged outstanding balance of Rs. 1,13,56,444/. The applicant also sought interest at 24% per annum amounting to Rs. 56,78,222/-, thereby claiming a total operational debt of Rs. 1,70,34,666/.
Following unsuccessful attempts at resolution and repeated correspondence, the applicant issued a formal demand notice dated 03.10.2024 under Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. SpiceJet issued a reply denying the claim entirely and disputing both the quantum and the legal basis of the demand. The applicant thereafter filed the present petition — CP (IB) No. 148/ND/2025 — before the NCLT, Delhi.
SpiceJet's Defence: Key Contentions
SpiceJet raised multiple objections going to the root of the petition's maintainability:
Revised Employment Terms and Novation of Contract
SpiceJet contended that the original offer letter dated 19.04.2019 had been superseded. During the COVID-19 period, the airline introduced revised "Transitionary Terms" for its pilots. The applicant had allegedly accepted the new compensation structure by filling out a Google Form in June 2020, confirming consent in the following terms:
"I refer to the Revised Pilot Contract sent to me vide e-mail dated 17 June 2020 and I hereby consent to the same with the request to roster me to the flight schedule in accordance with the Operational requirements of the company."
SpiceJet argued that this amounted to a novation of contract, replacing the earlier salary entitlements with the revised structure. All subsequent salary payments had been made in accordance with the novated terms.
Section 10A Bar on COVID-Period Defaults
A significant portion of the applicant's claim — Rs. 47,52,918/ — pertained to dues for the period April 2020 to March 2021, which falls squarely within the period protected under Section 10A of the IBC. SpiceJet submitted that once this amount was excluded from the total alleged dues of Rs. 1,13,56,444/-, the remaining claim stood reduced to approximately Rs. 66,03,526/, which is well below the statutory minimum threshold of Rs. 1 crore prescribed under Section 4 of the IBC.