Vijay Mallya and UBHL director Daljit Mahal have moved the Karnataka High Court seeking detailed bank statements on recoveries made against their debts. The petition claims banks have already recovered far more than the Rs 6,200 crore directed by the DRT.
Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya has approached the Karnataka High Court against debt recovery actions on Kingfisher Airlines, stating that authorities have already recovered the “principal debt amount multiple times over.” He has also requested a halt on further recovery and a detailed account statement. Mallya, wanted in India since 2016, claims banks have recovered more than double the Rs 6,203 crore debt, while Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman confirmed Rs 14,131.6 crore of his assets were restored to banks.
The Kerala High Court criticized a sessions court for comparing an NDPS case accused to fugitives Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi. The court stated that denying travel permission based on an unfounded assumption of absconding was inappropriate. It emphasized that such reasoning lacked legal justification. This ruling reinforces the importance of fair judicial decisions.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman reported in the Lok Sabha that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has recovered Rs 22,280 crore in illicit assets, aiding public sector banks and defrauded investors. Key recoveries include Rs 14,132 crore from Vijay Mallya and Rs 1,053 crore from Nirav Modi. The government remains committed to combating economic offenses.
A special CBI court in Mumbai issued a non-bailable warrant against Vijay Mallya for a Rs.180 crore loan default case linked to Indian Overseas Bank. The court cited Mallya’s fugitive status and issued an open-ended NBW to ensure his presence. The allegations include deliberate default on loan payments, causing significant financial loss to the bank. The case has drawn widespread attention and the Indian government is intensifying efforts to extradite Mallya from the UK.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed SFIO’s case against Vijay Mallya and Captain R. Gopinath, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 2013 to retrospectively apply to offenses under the Companies Act, 1956. The court emphasized proper approval of the merger, preventing fraud allegations from being revisited through criminal prosecution.
Adani-Hindenburg Case: Petitioner Calls for New Expert Committee Citing Alleged Conflicts of Interest In the ongoing Adani-Hindenburg case, the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court with a fresh affidavit, urging the reconstitution of the expert committee due to alleged conflicts of interest among its members. The Supreme Court had earlier formed an expert committee in […]