Vijay Mallya's Court Battle: Why He Claims Banks Recovered Too Much

Following the arguments and counterarguments, the court adjourned the hearing to November 12.

Vijay Mallya, through his petition, sought details of the assets seized so far by the banks in relation to his loan default. The petition also submitted that the banks must stop charging interest on the amounts already recovered by them.

Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya submitted that due to the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act, Mallya's properties were attached, and about Rs 10,000 crore had been recovered.

He further stated, "More than what was owed had been recovered and Mallya is now demanding a detailed statement of recovery made by banks till date."

He submitted that the recovery certificate was for the recovery of Rs 6,203 crore with interest at 11.5 per cent. As per the media statement by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on July 16, 2021, the amount shown as recovered was Rs 7,181 crore. As per the recovery proceedings, Rs 10,040 crore had been recovered.

The counsel further pointed out that according to the submission made by the official liquidator before the court, the consortium of banks had already recovered more than the due amount.

During the hearing of the writ petition, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, who was presiding over the single-judge bench, asked counsel Sajan Poovayya, representing Mallya, “Why haven’t you filed a petition before the company court? How can you seek such financial details from the banks through a writ petition?”

Arguing before the court, senior advocate Sajan Poovayya submitted that filing a writ petition before the High Court is Mallya’s constitutional right.

The High Court, intervening during the hearing, observed that Mallya had failed to appear before the Supreme Court in the contempt of court case. He had also not appeared in various court proceedings taking place across the country. In such a situation, the court questioned, how could he claim the right to file a writ petition?

Arguing on behalf of the banks, senior advocate Vikram Huilgol submitted that Mallya had fled the country and become a fugitive. If he were truly innocent, he should have returned to India and participated in the judicial process. Instead, he appears before the court only when it suits him, he argued.

The judge directed the banks’ counsel to file their objections and adjourned the hearing to November 12.

- IANS