“Why have I been made the poster boy of loan defaulters?” 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 (PMLA), Mr. Mallya accused the judiciary of targetting him, of treating him worse than a “terrorist” with no access to the rule of law.
“Why is my case unique? Why am I targetted when banks have seven lakh crore rupees worth of non-performing assets?” senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, representing Mr. Mallya, said in a day-long hearing in the court.
A Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit reserved for final orders on an application by a consortium of 13 banks led by State Bank of India, which had lent thousands of crores to Mr. Mallya over a period.
Mr. Mallya, who is believed to be in the U.K., owes Rs. 9,200 crore to his banks, his Rs. 8,000 crore worth of properties have been attached under the anti money laundering law and he has income tax dues of about Rs. 2,000 crore.
“I have no property of which I have any control. Everything has been attached. I have nothing,” Mr. Vaidynathan submitted.
“So you are penniless?” Justice Goel asked.
In the present case, the banks had approached the Supreme Court accusing Mr. Mallya of secreting away $40 million that he received from British liquor major Diageo Plc following his resignation as Chairman of United Spirits Limited in February 2016. The banks accused Mr. Mallya of contempt of court as he did not disclose this $40 million (Rs. 600 crore) among the assets the Supreme Court had ordered him to reveal so that the banks could recover the loan amount.
Mr. 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 disbursed it among his three adult children, who are U.S. citizens. He had implicitly complied with the Supreme Court order and given a complete list of assets as of March 31, 2016.
“So what was the unholy worry 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 Mr. Mallya should be “alienated, disposed or be subjected to the creation of third party rights” as was done with the $40 million.
“His willful, contumacious conduct of siphoning of the money and disbursing it out of reach of the authorities at a certain level shows that the gentleman is mocking the Indian judicial system. Please issue an injunction directing him to bring the money [$40 million] back forthwith,” senior advocate Shyam Divan submitted.
A notice of contempt from the Supreme Court is already pending against Mr. Mallya for allegedly supplying the banks with vague information about his and his family's assets in India and abroad. But instead of being either present in court or even filing a response to the notice, Mr. Mallya had opted to file an application in the Supreme Court for its recall. The court has reserved orders on this application.
Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Divan said the businessman was taking the Supreme Court “for a ride” and his conduct showed he cared “two hoots” for the judiciary.
Justice Goel asked Mr. Rohatgi whether there was any action that could be taken under the criminal law to secure the presence of Mr. Mallya back in an Indian court.
The Attorney-General took instructions from the Ministry of Home Affairs and came back later in the afternoon to detail that the government has requested the U.K. government to deport Mr. Mallya and a Note Verbale was issued in February 2017. Mr. Rohatgi informed the Supreme Court that the case of deportation is before the Westminster Magistrates Court.
“When you pass an order of contempt, we will show it in the proceedings in England,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted.
The Bench asked the banks to provide a complete list of cases pending against Mr. Mallya, so that it could consider transferring all of them to the Supreme Court and conduct a composite hearing at the highest level.
Mr. Vaidyanathan objected to the court's suggestion, submitting that the highest court would deny him his constitutional right to appeal by calling forth the cases from lower courts.
“You are a repository of extraordinary powers, but you should exercise these powers according to the procedure established by law,” Mr. Vaidynathan argued.
