Vijay Mallya deliberately didn't disclose full assets - Banks to SC


New Delhi, Aug 29 (PTI): A consortium of banks including SBI today told the Supreme Court that beleaguered businessman Vijay Mallya had deliberately not made full disclosure of his assets including USD 40 million which he received in February from a British firm.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the consortium of banks, told a bench of justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman that Mallya has not disclosed the amount which he received in February while he had filed the reply in March.

The Attorney General said that as per the Supreme Court rules, Mallya has to appear before the court after a notice has been served upon him in a contempt petition.

Rohatgi said that since Mallya had not been granted exemption from appearance, he should not be heard anymore.

Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for Mallya, told the bench that they have filed a petition for recall of apex court's earlier order and said that no contempt has been made.

He also said that the apex court's earlier order to disclose the assets has been complied with.

The bench then asked the Attorney General to file a response to Mallya's petition for recall of its earlier order and posted the matter on September 27.

Earlier, on July 25, the apex court had issued notice to Mallya on plea of consortium of banks which alleged that he had not disclosed his full assets including USD 40 million received by him from a British firm.



The apex court, after noting the submissions by Attorney General, had issued notice to Mallya and asked him to respond.

On July 14, Rohatgi claimed that Mallya had provided wrong details of his assets in a sealed cover to the apex court.

He further said a lot of information had also been concealed, including a cash transaction to the tune of Rs 2500 crore, which amounted to contempt of court.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had sought details of assets from Mallya in a sealed cover.

Recently, the consortium of banks had alleged that Mallya was not cooperating in the investigation of cases against him and was averse to disclosing his foreign assets.

In a rejoinder affidavit to Mallya's reply, the banks had said that disclosure of overseas assets by him and his family was significant for recovering the dues.

Rohatgi had earlier said that the beleaguered businessman has also not agreed to deposit "substantial amount" as part of of Rs 9,400 crore loan due on him to establish his bonafide".

Mallya had said the banks had no right over information regarding his overseas movable and immovable assets as he was an NRI since 1988.

He had also claimed that as an NRI, he was not obliged to disclose his overseas assets, and added that his wife and three children, all US citizens, also need not disclose their assets.

The court on April 7 had directed Mallya to disclose by April 21 the total assets owned by him and his family in India and abroad while seeking an indication from him when he would appear before it.

It had asked Mallya, who owes over Rs 9,000 crore to around 17 banks, to deposit a "substantial amount" with it to "prove his bonafide" that he was "serious" about meaningful negotiations and settlement.

  

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • J.F.D SOUZA, ATTAVAR,MANGALORE

    Tue, Aug 30 2016

    What about the loan sanctioned to others business magnates? What action has been taken by the Banks to recover the loan? Why only Mallya is targetted?

    DisAgree Agree [4] Reply Report Abuse

  • Aubb, Kuwait

    Tue, Aug 30 2016


    Foolish bankers are pretending as if something happened for the first time in Indian banking history.

    DisAgree Agree [2] Reply Report Abuse

  • Ramakrishna Adappa, Mangalore

    Tue, Aug 30 2016

    Why Banks are not following up with recovery of Rs.8,000 crores from Jathin Mehta of Winsom Diamond, even though these dues are much bigger than that of Vijay Mallya ? Jathin Mehta is also absconding and hiding in some Tax heaven islands,as surmised by Police.

    DisAgree Agree [7] Reply Report Abuse

  • Sachidanand Shetty, Dubai/Mundkur

    Tue, Aug 30 2016

    When I was on vacation recently one of our village men innocently asked me “what is this Vijaya Mallya Case”? When I asked him why you are asking this question….. He said our village Banker refused to give loan to me because they need guarantor as surety and it became mandatory after Vijaya Mallya case!!!! Earlier they used to take any known person from the village to the Bank as guarantor but now Banker is asking what is the surety of this guarantor?

    DisAgree [2] Agree [4] Reply Report Abuse

  • Charles D'Mello, Pangala

    Mon, Aug 29 2016

    common people like us can only avail 90% of the amount even if we surrender our fixed deposit certificates...!!!!??? In case of buying a flat by us the flat has to be mortgaged to the bank and the certain initial amount has to be paid by us fro our pocket...!!!??? O.K I agree that Mr. Mallya has not disclosed all his assets. The loan given to him must be proportional to his assets if the banks follow standard rule..!!??? Now that the banks have not followed the standard rule and crying...!!!

    DisAgree [1] Agree [10] Reply Report Abuse

  • Alwyn Crasta, Mangalore/Bangalore

    Mon, Aug 29 2016

    It's high time our various institutions and enforcement agencies learn from their very costly mistakes. People are sick and tired of these.

    Hope the number and magnitude of scams comes down, henceforth. Indians are waiting impatiently for "Acche Din".

    DisAgree [1] Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • PEDDU, MANGALURU

    Mon, Aug 29 2016

    THE MOCKERY THEY ARE DOING TO A POOR SAME RETURNED BY THE MASTER MALLYA ! BRAVO MALLYA THOUGH YOU DID A WRONG THING BUT YOU TAUGHT A LESSON TO THEM

    DisAgree Agree [17] Reply Report Abuse

  • Rudolf Rodrigues, Mangalore/Mumbai

    Mon, Aug 29 2016

    LENDING BANKERS R EQUALLY GUILTY. THEY SHOULD BE MADE ACCOUNTABLE!!

    DisAgree Agree [17] Reply Report Abuse

  • Jossey Saldanha, Nashville

    Mon, Aug 29 2016

    Why ED give him a clean chit while fleeing the Country ...

    DisAgree Agree [13] Reply Report Abuse

  • Santosh,K, Mangalore

    Mon, Aug 29 2016

    These Banks sanctioned loan to VIJAY MALLYA without looking his assets. But these banks required 10 lacks assets for 1 lack loan for poor farmer.

    DisAgree [1] Agree [21] Reply Report Abuse

  • raj, mangalore,Bajal

    Tue, Aug 30 2016

    These Banks sanctioned loan to VIJAY MALLYA without looking his assets. But these banks required 10 lacks assets for 1 lack loan for poor farmer. for this question Mrs Arundathi Battachary has to Replay

    DisAgree Agree [4] Reply Report Abuse

  • G Ravikiran Rai, Kotekar/Mysuru.

    Tue, Aug 30 2016

    Mallya can give hefty bribe to the top Bank officials whereas farmer cannot give any bribe. So Mallya could avail loan easily without much collateral security whereas poor farmer cannot avail loan.

    DisAgree Agree [4] Reply Report Abuse

  • Flavian, Mangaluru/Kuwait

    Mon, Aug 29 2016

    Our government is not capable of securing his extradition from UK.
    What a pity?
    And we are after so many underworld DONS. All the talks remain in the Air.

    DisAgree [2] Agree [25] Reply Report Abuse

  • akhilesh, Mangalore/Bangalore

    Tue, Aug 30 2016

    @Flavian...its not a easy procedure as u think...the fact of matter here is mallya is dual citizen...if UK is not willing to part the info....there is no point in blaming any govt for that matter!!!!

    DisAgree [1] Agree [1] Reply Report Abuse

  • HENRY MISQUITH, Bahrain

    Mon, Aug 29 2016

    Why they have granted loan if assets were not enough,,,sub mili bhgath.

    DisAgree [2] Agree [19] Reply Report Abuse

  • Praveen, Udupi

    Mon, Aug 29 2016

    Aye malla chalu ya :D

    DisAgree [3] Agree [15] Reply Report Abuse


Leave a Comment

Title: Vijay Mallya deliberately didn't disclose full assets - Banks to SC



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.