Even as businessman Vijay Mallya totters on the verge of expulsion from the Rajya Sabha, his lenders on Monday made matters worse for him by refusing to budge an inch in the Supreme Court.
The banking consortium led by the State of Bank of India filed a counter-affidavit rubbishing Mr. Mallya’s claim for privilege from divulging his and his family’s overseas assets to the banks.
Mr. Mallya had said that as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI), he was not obliged to disclose details of his properties abroad. He had claimed that the banks had no right to seek information about the assets of his children, who are U.S. citizens, and estranged wife, who is also an NRI. He had pegged his total net worth around Rs. 780 crore without divulging any details.
In their reply, the banks said Mr. Mallya was bound to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court. They objected to his contention to hand over the details of his overseas assets in a sealed cover to the apex court.
In the counter-affidavit filed in the apex court a day before the hearing on April 26, the banks dug their heels in, insisting on full access to the details of his foreign properties in order to assess the veracity of his offers for settlement of the loans amounting to over Rs. 9,000 crore.
They dismissed Mr. Mallya’s accusations that he was “threatened” by the banks to make personal guarantee for the private carrier’s (Kingfisher Airlines) loans.
Countering Mr. Mallya’s argument that his overseas assets were never considered by the banks while granting loans or restructuring the loans of Kingfisher Airlines and that there was no reason to grant the banks any access to them, the banks said that once the principal debtor was found to be bankrupt, they had every right to look at other properties of the beneficiary for repayment of the outstanding loans.
On April 7, a Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman ordered Mr. Mallya to disclose assets in India and abroad of himself and his wife and children. The apex court also wanted to know when the businessman, believed to be abroad, would return and be present in the Supreme Court.
In his affidavit, Mr. Mallya said the government’s suspension of his passport without even hearing him and the subsequent issuance of non-bailable warrant against him had in effect obstructed the Supreme Court’s order.
Opposing this, the banks said Mr. Mallya could have applied for a travel permit during the time of the suspension of his passport. Nevertheless, they said that banks could not suffer just because he was facing action in other unrelated proceedings.
On Mr. Mallya’s offer to settle with the banks by paying them money pending with other companies like Airbus, etc, the banks said these companies were not parties in the current litigation and the onus of re-payment could not be shifted to them.
