New Delhi, Aug 16 (IANS): The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would examine a joint request for mediation by SpiceJet airlines and media baron Kalanithi Maran and his KAL Airways on reaching an amicable settlement of all pending disputes, which includes the row over the share-transfer issue.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing SpiceJet, submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana that both the petitioner and the respondents -- Maran and KAL Airways -- are attempting for comprehensive settlement which includes three issues that require detailed discussion for the settlement, namely: the issue of clearance of the loan and release of the security amount ensured, the interest due, and the compounding of the ongoing prosecution.

He informed the bench, also comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli, that petitioner has already settled one dispute of clearance of the loan and release of the security amount with the City Union Bank and sought four to six weeks time for settling all the issues. Rohatgi requested the court to list the matter after four to six weeks so that a settlement can be reached.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh appearing for the decree holders suggested to the apex court that the settlement talks could be referred to the Hyderabad Mediation Centre for settlement. The bench enquired if an arbitrator should be appointed to which both Singh and Rohatgi requested that the matter should instead be submitted for mediation.

"We will see," the bench said.

Singh along with senior advocate Maninder Singh, assisted by advocates from Karanjawala & Co. appeared on behalf of the Kal Airways and Kalanithi Maran.

The top court was hearing special leave petitions filed by the SpiceJet Ltd. against KAL Airways and Kalanithi Maran (decree holders) challenging the order dated September 2, 2020, passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby SpiceJet was directed to deposit Rs 242.56 crore to secure the decree holders to the extent of interest granted to them under an arbitral award. The top court had stayed the operation of the high court order and the decree holders had filed an application seeking vacation of the stay.