Industrialist Vijay Mallya has left the country the day public sector banks, to whom he owed over Rs 9,000 crore in loans, moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on March 2, 2016 against him, attorney
Industrialist Vijay Mallya has left the country the day public sector banks, to whom he owed over Rs 9,000 crore in loans, moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on March 2, 2016 against him, attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Mr Rohatgi, appearing for a consortium of banks, made this submission before a bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman when the Bench wanted to know the whereabouts of Mr Mallya and whether he will receive court notice.
Mr Rohatgi submitted that he asked the CBI a few minutes ago about Mr Mallya, and he was infor-med that the Rajya Sabha MP had left India on March 2, the day the banks approached the DRT. This prompted Justice Nariman to observe that “there seems to be very little left for us.”
Mr Rohatgi wanted the bench to pass an order directing Mr Mallya to appear before this court with his passport. “We are not after his blood. We want to sit across the table and get back our money. We want to settle the loans,” the A-G said.
The top government lawyer said the “only information is on social media sites, which show that most of his assets are abroad. Only a fraction is in India, may be one-fifth.”
When Justice Kurian Joseph wondered as to how the banks gave loans without adequate security. The A-G said that at the time of the loans, Kingfisher Airlines was a brand which was at its peak which had assets worth thousands of cro-res of rupees and then it crashed. Loans are adv-anced for the brand value and even for the logo.
As the court was informed that Mr Mallya has already left for the United Kingdom, the bench accepted the request of AG to serve the notice through the Indian High Commission in London; through his official Rajya Sabha email id, through his counsel representing in the Karnataka High Court and through his company United Breweries Holdings Ltd.
The bench sought his reply in two weeks and posted the matter for March 30 to decide the next course of action.
The DRT and the Karnataka HC earlier had declined to issue an arrest warrant against him.
