Select Page

City Union Bank



Share this page

Fugitive industrialist Vijay Mallya, convicted in the contempt case, has received a major setback from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has dismissed Vijay Mallya’s plea seeking reconsideration of the order passed in 2017 in the contempt of court case. On August 27, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict in the case. In fact, the fugitive businessman Mallya had filed a petition for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s order dated May 9, 2017, which held him guilty of contempt of court for transferring US $ 400 million to his children’s accounts, bypassing judicial orders. had gone.

On August 27, Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ashok Bhushan reserved the verdict after hearing arguments in the case. The court asked its registry in June to explain why Vijay Mallya’s reconsideration petition was not listed before the court concerned in the last three years. He had asked the registry to provide all the information including the names of the officials who had seen the file related to the petition in the last three years.

Mallya, currently accused in a bank loan fraud case of over nine thousand crore rupees, is currently in the UK. The apex court gave the order in 2017 on a petition by a group of banks led by State Bank of India. The petition stated that Mallya had allegedly “openly violated” various judicial orders and transferred US $ 40 million from the British company Diageo to his children’s accounts.

On the other hand, in another case, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it would consider the question whether liquidation of the assets of the company attached through legal proceedings to settle its financial liabilities could be considered. A bench of Justices Uday U Lalit and Vineet Saran on behalf of the liquor baron Vijay Mallya’s company United Breweries (Holding) Ltd (UBHL) was informed by senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan that the company’s total assets exceeded its liabilities. . UBHL has challenged the March 6 order of the Karnataka High Court upholding the single judge’s decision to wind up the business of the company.

The bench listed the matter for September 8, stating that if necessary, the parties would have to answer the question whether the attached property could be considered to be liquidated to pay the liabilities. On March 6, the High Court turned down the proposal to settle the debts of the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines. UBHL claimed that the market value of its assets was more than its liabilities.


Share this page