- 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’s Lawyers Oppose Bank Consortium’s Application To Sell His Properties Attached By Enforcement Directorate
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Fugitive billionaire and willful defaulter Vijay Mallya’s lawyers in India have opposed an application filed recently by a consortium of 12 banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) to liquidate his properties which were attached by the Enforcement Directorate.The consortium had recently filed an application before a special CBI court in Mumbai along with cases under...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Fugitive billionaire and willful defaulter Vijay Mallya’s lawyers in India have opposed an application filed recently by a consortium of 12 banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) to liquidate his properties which were attached by the Enforcement Directorate.
The consortium had recently filed an application before a special CBI court in Mumbai along with cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), seeking release of Mallya's assets with the ED so that these could be sold off to recover his debts.
However Mallyas’s lawyers told the court that the consortium ought to have approached the civil forum and instead of approaching the court, adding that these issues would be decided by the Karnataka High Court.
The special court in Mumbai was not the right forum to pass an order to liquidate his property since the Karnataka High Court has the right to make that decision, it was stated.
It was argued that all litigants including the banks, Kingfisher employees and all other entities are present before the Karnataka High Court, whereas the employees were not part of the proceedings at the Mumbai court.
The consortium’s lawyer told the court that Mallya had already been declared a fugitive and that his attached properties should go to those who are legally entitled like SBI and others. He stated that there are various interveners in the case but the SBI consortium has first claim because of various orders passed by the Mumbai court which had passed orders to attach Mallya’s property.
The principal amount which Mallya owes to banks is around Rs 5,000 crore, which has risen to around Rs 12,000 crore, with the 11.5% interest which have been mounting because of non-payment of dues.
The court will hear further arguments on July 16.