- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Vijay Mallya Moves Bombay High Court Seeking Protection From Adverse Action, Sale Of Assets By Government Agencies
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Fugitive fugitive economic offender (FEO) Vijay Mallya has moved the Bombay High Court seeking protection from any adverse action against him and his assets by government agencies and lower courts in connection with ongoing cases.The cases against him pertain to conspiracy to defraud banks as well as money laundering.A consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Fugitive fugitive economic offender (FEO) Vijay Mallya has moved the Bombay High Court seeking protection from any adverse action against him and his assets by government agencies and lower courts in connection with ongoing cases.
The cases against him pertain to conspiracy to defraud banks as well as money laundering.
A consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) is seeking to recover more than Rs 9,000 crore from him and has confiscated his assets. The lenders want to liquidate the assets to claim Rs 6,203.35 crore along with 11.5% interest per annum payable since 2013.
Incidentally, Mallya, who left the country in March 2016 to reside in the United Kingdom is the first person to be declared a fugitive economic offender (FEO) under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act.
However, in his latest plea, the fugitive businessman has claimed that provisions of the FEO Act are ultra vires of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
His petition has contended that this is so, because not only do FEO Act provisions seek to deprive by confiscation a fugitive economic offender of assets which are alleged to be proceeds of crime, but also confiscate all other assets that were legitimately acquired by the accused, that too without any compensation.
Incidentally, his plea ahs come about two and a half months after the high court refused his earlier plea to stay the proceedings pending in the lower court under the FEO Act on April 24 and held that it was “not inclined to grant interim relief at this stage”.
His latest plea has urged the high court that whatever orders may be passed by the authorities or special court under the FEO Act be made subject to the final outcome of his petition pending before the high court.