Mallya to apex court: Am I the poster boy of loan defaulters?

“Why have I been made the poster boy for loan defaulters?” fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya asked the Supreme Court on Thursday.

As his debts mount and his properties stay attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Mallya accused the judiciary of targeting him, of treating him worse than a “terrorist” with no access to the rule of law.

“Why is my case unique? Why am I targeted when the banks have seven-lakh crore rupees worth of non-performing assets?” senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing Mallya, confronted the court in a day-long hearing.

The Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit reserved for final orders an application by a consortium of 13 banks led by State Bank of India, which had lent thousands of crores to Mallya over a period.

Mallya, who is believed to be in the UK, owes ₹9,200 crore to the banks, his ₹8,000 crore worth of properties have been attached under the anti-money laundering law and he has income tax dues of about ₹2,000 crore.

“I have no property of which I have any control. Everything has been attached. I have nothing,” Vaidynathan submitted, to which Justice Goel asked: “So you are penniless?”

In the present case, the banks had approached the Supreme Court accusing Mallya of transferring $40 million that he received from British liquor major Diageo Plc following his resignation as Chairman of United Spirits Ltd in February 2016. The banks accused Mallya of contempt of court as he did not disclose this amount, among the assets the Supreme Court had ordered him to reveal so that the banks could recover the loan.

Mallya, in turn, had replied that the $40 million was one among “thousands of transactions” he did and not counted as an asset.

He said he had no control over that money as he had already disbursed it among his three adult children, who are US citizens. He had implicitly complied to the Supreme Court order and had given a complete list of assets as of March 31, 2016.

“So what was the hurry to disburse the $40 million when you owed so much to the public banks? Why did you not pay back something to purge yourself?” Justice Lalit asked.

This disbursal, the banks submitted, was in direct violation of a standing Karnataka High Court order that no assets of Mallya should be “alienated, disposed or be subjected to the creation of third party rights” as was done with the $40 million.

COMMENT NOW