Delhi Court orders attachment of Vijay Mallya’s properties

A Delhi court has ordered attachment of liquor baron Vijay Mallya’s properties in Bengaluru in a case relating to FERA violations.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Deepak Sherawat issued fresh directions after the Bengaluru Police, through Enforcement Directorate’s special public prosecutor N K Matta and advocate Samvedna Verma, sought more time to execute its earlier order in this regard.

The court directed the state police to attach the properties by July 10, the next date of hearing.

The Bengaluru Police had earlier informed the court that it had identified 159 properties belonging to Mallya, but had not been able to attach any of them.

Mallya was declared a proclaimed offender by the court on January 4 last year for evading its summons in the case.

The court had on May 8 last year directed the attachment of Mallya’s properties in the case through the Bengaluru Police commissioner and sought a report on it.

It had declared Mallya a proclaimed offender for evading summons in a Foreign Exchange Management Act (FERA) violation case after noting that he had failed to appear despite repeated summonses.

It had on April 12, 2017 issued an open-ended non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the liquor baron.

Unlike a non-bailable warrant, an ‘open-ended NBW’ does not carry a time limit for execution.

Mallya Escapee case: Court fixes Sept 3 as next date

New Delhi:-A special court here today fixed September 3 as the next date of hearing in the Vijay Mallya fugitive economic offender declaration case as some other parties have sought to implead themselves in the matter pertaining to the alleged default of over Rs 9,000 crore bank loans, officials said.


Officials said at least five parties, including a family member of Mallya, has sought court documents with regard to the ED seeking to get declared the businessman a fugitive economic offender under the new law and hence the court posted the matter for the next week.

The next date for the hearing in the case is September 3, as ordered by the court of special PMLA judge M S Azmi, they said.

A counsel for Mallya also appeared in the court today, as per the scheduled date of hearing, and sought some documents, they said.

The same court, on June 30, had issued notice to Mallya to appear before it on August 27 after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) charged the liquor baron under the new law as it enlarged its money laundering probe against him and others in a RS 9,000 alleged bank fraud case.

The central probe agency has also sought immediate confiscation of assets worth about Rs 12,500 crore of Mallya as part of this latest action.

The court had earlier issued non-bailable warrants against the businessman in two cases filed by the ED.

Mallya, his now defunct venture Kingfisher Airlines Limited and others availed loans from various banks and the outstanding amount, including interest, against him is Rs 9,990.07 crore at present, the officials had said while filing the plea under the new law.

The businessman is currently contesting his extradition case in London filed by the Indian government on behalf of the CBI and ED.

Mallya, in the past, has said that he has become the “poster boy of bank default and a lightning rod for public anger.

I have been accused by politicians and the media alike of having stolen and run away with Rs 9,000 crores that was loaned to Kingfisher Airlines (KFA). Some of the lending banks have also labelled me a wilful defaulter, he said.

The ED has furnished evidences in its two charge sheets, filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the past, to make a case for seeking a fugitive offender tag for Mallya from the court.

He is currently contesting the money laundering charges in London after India initiated extradition proceedings to bring him back to the country.

Both the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) have filed cases for alleged loan default against him.

Modi government brought the new law as there have been instances of economic offenders fleeing the jurisdiction of Indian courts, anticipating the commencement, or during the pendency, of criminal proceedings .

The law has provisions for special courts under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to declare a person as a fugitive economic offender and order immediate confiscation of assets.

A fugitive economic offender is a person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued in respect of a scheduled offence and who has left India so as to avoid criminal prosecution, or being abroad, refuses to return to India to face criminal prosecution, the government had said.

The cases of frauds, cheque dishonour or loan default of over Rs 100 crore would come under the ambit of the ordinance.

Court issues fresh order to attach Mallya’s properties in PMLA case

A Delhi court today issued fresh directions to attach the properties of businessman Vijay Mallya, who was declared a proclaimed offender for evading summons in a money laundering case related to FERA violations.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Deepak Sherawat issued the order after advocate N K Matta, the special public prosecutor appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), told the court that the agency had not received any reply from the authorities responsible for the attachment.

The court took Matta’s submission on record and posted the matter for further hearing on July 5.

The court had on March 27 directed the attachment through the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru, and had sought a report by today regarding the compliance of the order.

The order was passed on an application moved by the ED seeking attachment of Mallya’s properties.

The court had on January 4 declared Mallya a proclaimed offender for evading summons in a FERA violation case after noting that he failed to appear before it despite repeated summonses.

It had on April 12 last year issued an open-ended non-bailable warrant against the liquor baron. Unlike a non-bailable warrant, an ‘open-ended NBW’ does not carry a time limit for execution.

On November 4, 2016, while issuing a non-bailable warrant against Mallya, the court had observed he had no inclination to return and had scant regard for the law of the land.

It had said that “coercive process has to be initiated against Mallya” as he was facing proceedings in several cases ad avoiding appearance in those matters.

The court had also held that Mallya’s plea that he wanted to return to India but was “incapacitated” to travel as his passport had been revoked by the Indian authorities was “malafide” and “abuse of the process of law”.

Mallya, who is reportedly in London, had on September 9 submitted before the court that he was “incapacitated” to travel despite “best intentions” as his passport had been revoked.

The court had on July 9 cancelled the exemption from personal appearance granted to Mallya on an application of the ED and directed him to appear before it on September 9. The exemption was granted to Mallya in December 2000.

The anti-money laundering agency had issued summons to the businessman in connection with the alleged payment of USD 200,000 to a British firm for displaying Kingfisher logo during the Formula One World Championships in London and some European countries in 1996, 1997 and 1998.

It had claimed that the money was allegedly paid without prior approval of the RBI in violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) norms.

According to the ED, Mallya was summoned on four occasions for questioning in connection with the contract signed in December, 1995 with London-based firm Benetton Formula Ltd for the promotion of the Kingfisher brand abroad.

When Mallya failed to appear before the ED in response to the summons, a complaint was filed on March 8, 2000 before a court here and later charges were framed against him under the FERA Act.

Mallya, who had fled to the UK in March 2016, is also wanted in India for Kingfisher Airlines’ default on loans worth nearly Rs 9,000 crore and some other matters.

Mallya to be declared PO; Court asks him to appear by Dec 18

Mallya to be declared PO; Court asks him to appear by Dec 18
Mallya to be declared PO; Court asks him to appear by Dec 18

A Delhi court today initiated the process to declare beleaguered businessman Vijay Mallya as a proclaimed offender for allegedly evading summons in a FERA violation case.

It has now given him the last opportunity to appear before the court by December 18.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Deepak Shehrawat directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to take appropriate steps while initiating the process.

The court passed the order after ED’s Special Public Prosecutor N K Matta informed it that the open-ended non- bailable warrant (NBW) issued earlier against Mallya has been returned as unexecuted and the agency has no other option but to initiate the process under Section 82 and 83 of CrPC.

The agency is likely to take various steps, including publishing in newspapers regarding the matter.

The court had on April 12 issued an open-ended NBW against the liquor baron.

An ‘open-ended NBW’ does not carry a time limit for execution unlike ‘NBW’.

On November 4 last year, while issuing non-bailable warrant against Mallya, the court had observed that he had no inclination to return and had scant regard for the law of the land.

It had said that coercive process has to be initiated against liquor baron Mallya as he was facing proceedings in several cases and evading appearance in those matters.

The court had also held that Mallya’s plea, that he wanted to return to India but was “incapacitated” to travel as his passport had been revoked by Indian authorities, was “malafide” and “abuse of the process of law”.

Mallya, who is reportedly in London, had submitted before the court on September 9 that he wanted to come back to India but was “incapacitated” to travel despite “best intentions” as his passport had been revoked.

On July 9, the court had cancelled the exemption from personal appearance granted to Mallya and directed him to appear before it on September 9.

The exemption from personal appearance to Mallya was granted in December 2000 on ED’s complaint for evading summons issued by it.

The agency had issued summons to the businessman in connection with alleged payment of USD 200,000 to a British firm for displaying Kingfisher logo in Formula One World Championships in London and some European countries in 1996, 1997 and 1998.

It had claimed that the money was allegedly paid without prior approval from the RBI in violation of FERA norms.

In its plea against Mallya, ED had also sought issuance of non-bailable warrant against the Chairman of the defunct Kingfisher Airlines to secure his presence in the ongoing trial of the case, which is at the final stage.

According to ED, Mallya was summoned on four occasions for questioning in connection with a contract signed in December 1995 with London-based firm Benetton Formula Ltd for promotion of the Kingfisher brand abroad.

When Mallya failed to appear before ED in response to the summons, a complaint was filed on March 8, 2000 before a court here and later charges were framed against him under FERA.

( Source – PTI )

ED in court to declare Vijay Mallya proclaimed offender

ED in court to declare Vijay Mallya proclaimed offender
ED in court to declare Vijay Mallya proclaimed offender

The Enforcement Directorate today approached a Delhi court seeking to declare beleaguered businessman Vijay Mallya a proclaimed offender in a case of allegedly evading summons in a FERA violation matter.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Deepak Shehrawat is likely to take up the matter today itself.

Special Public Prosecutor N K Matta, appearing for the ED, told the court that the agency has no other option but to initiate the proceedings to declare Mallya as a proclaimed offender.

The court had on April 12 issued an open-ended non- bailable warrant against the liquor baron.

An ‘open-ended NBW’ does not carry a time limit for execution unlike ‘NBW’.

On November 4 last year, while issuing non-bailable warrant against Mallya, the court had observed that he had no inclination to return and had scant regard for the law of the land.

It had said that coercive process has to be initiated against liquor baron Mallya as he was facing proceedings in several cases and evading appearance in those matters.

The court had also held that Mallya’s plea, that he wanted to return to India but was “incapacitated” to travel as his passport had been revoked by Indian authorities, was “malafide” and “abuse of the process of law”.

Mallya, who is reportedly in London, had submitted before the court on September 9 that he wanted to come back to India but was “incapacitated” to travel despite “best intentions” as his passport had been revoked.

On July 9, the court had cancelled the exemption from personal appearance granted to Mallya and directed him to appear before it on September 9.

The exemption from personal appearance to Mallya was granted in December 2000 on ED’s complaint for evading summons issued by it.

The agency had issued summons to the businessman in connection with alleged payment of USD 200,000 to a British firm for displaying Kingfisher logo in Formula One World Championships in London and some European countries in 1996, 1997 and 1998.

It had claimed that the money was allegedly paid without prior approval from the RBI in violation of FERA norms.

In its plea against Mallya, ED had also sought issuance of non-bailable warrant against the Chairman of the defunct Kingfisher Airlines to secure his presence in the ongoing trial of the case, which is at the final stage.

According to ED, Mallya was summoned on four occasions for questioning in connection with a contract signed in December 1995 with London-based firm Benetton Formula Ltd for promotion of the Kingfisher brand abroad.

When Mallya failed to appear before ED in response to the summons, a complaint was filed on March 8, 2000 before a court here and later charges were framed against him under FERA.

( Source – PTI )

Home Ministry to ensure Mallya’s presence on July 10: SC

Home Ministry to ensure Mallya's presence on July 10: SC
Home Ministry to ensure Mallya’s presence on July 10: SC

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Home Ministry to “secure and ensure” the presence of embattled businessman Vijay Mallya, who is currently in the United Kingdom, before it on July 10 for the hearing on the quantam of punishment for contempt of court.

The top court has held Mallya guilty of contempt of court for disobeying its orders by not disclosing full particulars of his assets and also violating the orders of Karnataka High Court by transferring USD 40 million received from British firm Diageo, to his three children.

India had recently asked Britain to ensure early extradition of Mallya, who is an accused in a bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

“We direct the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to secure and ensure presence of Vijay Mallya before this court on July 10, 2017. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for compliance,” a bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit said.

The offence of contempt of court entails a maximum imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of upto Rs 2,000 or both.

The bench observed that Mallya has neither filed a reply to the contempt plea, nor has he appeared in person before it.

Since he has been found guilty of contempt of court, “we deem it necessary to give him one more opportunity and also hear him on the proposed punishment”.

“We, therefore, adjourn matter to July 10 for hearing Vijay Mallya in person on matters in issue, including one regarding the proposed punishment to be awarded to him for contempt of court,” the court, in its 26-page judgement, said.

The apex court’s order came on a plea by the consortium of banks, led by the State Bank of India (SBI), which had said that Mallya had not disclosed full particulars of his assets and violated various judicial orders.

In its verdict, the bench noted that the orders passed by the apex court were “clear and unambiguous” and Mallya was called upon to make complete disclosure of his assets.

“Whether the assets to be so disclosed were covered by the personal guarantee given by Mallya or not was immaterial.

He was called upon to make a complete disclosure and was bound to comply with the directions,” it said.

The court also termed as “correct” the assertion made by the banks that details of bank account held in Edmond De Rothschild Bank were never disclosed by Mallya.

“In fact, no details of any bank account with overseas banks were given by Mallya. The violation by Mallya could not be termed as a mere infraction. The violation by Mallya regarding non-disclosure becomes more pronounced because it is this very account held in Edmand De Rothschild Bank that was utilised to transmit funds to the tune of USD 40 million,” the bench noted.

Referring to the Karnataka High Court order, the apex court said it restrained Mallya and others from transferring, alienating, disposing or creating third-party rights in respect of movable and immovable properties belonging to them till further orders in the proceedings before it.

It said all the properties, whether movable or immovable, were governed by the orders of restraint by the high court.

“There is no ambiguity of any sort and the orders of restraint are quite clear. Consequently, funds amounting to USD 40 million which came to be under the control of and in the hands of Vijay Mallya were completely covered and governed by said orders of restraint,” the bench said.

“The explanation that the funds now stand transferred in favour of the trusts over which Mallya has no control at all, in fact aggravates the extent of violation. It is clear that the funds which were in control of Mallya have now been sought to be put beyond the reach of processes of court, which is reflective of the intent,” it said.

The bench further said the least that was expected of Mallya was to disclose the relevant facts pertaining to receipt and disbursement of USD 40 million.

“Having considered the entirety of the matter, we find that Vijay Mallya is guilty of having committed contempt of court on both the counts,” it said and directed Mallya to keep his affidavit ready to be tendered on July 10 by stating the mitigating circumstances, if any, and any other submissions he chooses to advance.

The banks had alleged that Mallya had concealed the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in “flagrant violation” of the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court.

Mallya’s counsel had said that money which came from Diageo belonged to his children and not him.

( Source – PTI )

SC holds Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt of court

SC holds Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt of court
SC holds Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt of court

The Supreme Court today held businessman Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt of court for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violation of the court’s order.

The apex court directed Mallya, who is presently in the United Kingdom, to appear before it on July 10 to argue on the quantum of punishment in the matter.

India had recently asked Britain to ensure early extradition of Mallya, who is an accused in a bank loan default case of over Rs 9000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

“We have found respondent number 3 (Mallya) guilty of contempt of court on two grounds,” a bench comprising Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit said.

The order came on a plea by consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI), which had said that Mallya had allegedly transferred USD 40 million received from British firm Diageo, to his children in “flagrant violation” of various judicial orders.

The apex court had on March 9 asked the liquor baron about the “truthfulness” of his disclosure of assets and the transfer of money to his children.

The bench had reserved its order on two pleas of lending banks seeking contempt action and a direction to Mallya to deposit USD 40 million received from offshore firm Diageo respectively.

The banks have alleged that Mallya concealed the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in “flagrant violation” of the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court.

The bench had also posed several queries to consortium of banks and asked it whether any criminal proceedings have been initiated against Mallya.

The court had asked Mallya as to why he did not disclose the receipt of USD 40 million from London-based company Diageo Plc and subsequent transfer of money to trusts to which his three children were the beneficiaries.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the banks, had contended that unless Mallya deposits USD 40 million before this court, he does not deserve to be heard and, moreover, he needed to appear personally as the contempt notice has already been issued.

The AG had also told the court that the government is seeking deportation of Mallya from the UK.

Divan had referred to various orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the High Court and the Supreme Court and said that the DRT has passed a decree in favour of the banks and the amount to be recovered is approximately Rs 9,200 crores.

There was a specific order of the High Court that Mallya will not transfer or alienate any movable and immovable assets to any person, he had said.

The bench had asked as to how the decree of the DRT to recover Rs 9,200 crore would be executed, to which the AG had said “God knows, how will it get the money back,” adding that Mallya has taken this court for “a ride”.

The bench had also asked C S Vaidyanathan, Mallya’s counsel, about the response on the contempt notice.

The lawyer had said that an application for recall of the order has been filed and according to him, no contempt is made out and hence, the plea itself can be considered as the reply.

Mallya’s counsel had said the money which came from Diageo belonged to his children and not him.

The bench had shot back: “Somebody who is faced with a default of Rs 6,200 crore and suppose if he gets Rs 3,000 crore, he should have given it to repay the dues”.

Vaidyanathan maintained that the USD 40 million was not covered under the injunction order.

In October last year, the court had rapped Mallya for not making full disclosure of his overseas properties and had asked him to do so within a month.

The bench had also pulled up Mallya for not giving details of USD 40 million which he had allegedly received from Diageo in February last year, saying it was of the “prima facie view” that proper disclosure as per its earlier order was not made.

The banks had on August 29 last year told the Supreme Court that Mallya had deliberately not made full disclosure of his assets including the USD 40 million he received on February 25 from Diageo.

( Source – PTI )

SC questions Mallya on assets, transfer of USD 40 mn to kids

SC questions Mallya on assets, transfer of USD 40 mn to kids
SC questions Mallya on assets, transfer of USD 40 mn to kids

Liquor baron Vijay Mallya, who is presently in the United Kingdom, was today posed searching questions by the Supreme Court which asked him about the “truthfulness” of his disclosure of assets and transfer of USD 40 millions to his children.

A bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and U U Lalit put for the queries during the day-long hearing after which it reserved the orders on two pleas of lending banks seeking contempt action and a direction to him to deposit USD 40 million received from offshore firm Diageo respectively.

“You answer us whether you have disclosed your assets truthfully? Did you violate the Karnataka High Court order (restraining Mallaya from transferring and alienating assets) by transferring USD 40 million,” the bench asked senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, representing Mallya.

At the outset, the bench also posed several queries to the consortium of lending banks led by State Bank of India and asked it whether any criminal proceedings have been initiated against Mallya.

“Was any security taken at the time of giving the loan? Was the security adequate? If not, then why the loan was advanced without sufficient security.

“Is it not a case of misrepresentation with regard to security?,” the bench asked.

The court then asked Mallya as to why he did not disclose the receipt of USD 40 million from London-based company Diageo Plc and subsequent transfer of money to trusts to which his three children were the beneficiaries.

The banks have alleged that Mallya concealed the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in “flagrant violation” of the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the banks, contended that unless Mallya deposits USD 40 million before this court, he does not deserve to be heard and, moreover, he needed to appear personally as the contempt notice has already been issued.

“He did not disclose the USD 40 million deal with Diageo to this court. He took the Supreme Court for a ride, cares two hoots for the courts,” Rohatgi said.

In response to the query as to how the orders of the court would be enforced, he said that the government is seeking deportation of Mallya from the UK.

( Source – PTI )

SC asks Mallya whether he truthfully disclosed assets

SC asks Mallya whether he truthfully disclosed assets
SC asks Mallya whether he truthfully disclosed assets

The Supreme Court today put forth searching questions to liquor baron Vijay Mallya on the disclosure of his assets to the court.

A bench comprising Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit asked Mallya if he had been truthful after a consortium of banks led by the SBI alleged that USD 40 million was transferred by Mallya to his three children in complete violation of the Karnataka High Court order.

Moreover, the fact that USD 40 million was received by Mallya from a United Kingdom-based company Diageo PLC was not disclosed before the court here, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the banks, alleged.

Taking note of the allegation, the bench asked the counsel for Mallya to respond to the AG’s query whether “he truthfully disclosed his assets or not”.

It also wanted to know as to whether by transferring USD 40 million to his children, he violated the Karnataka High Court order in this regard or not.

The Karnataka High Court had restrained Mallya from transferring or alienating any movable and immovable assets to any third party.

The bench would resume hearing at 2 PM.

( Source – PTI )

SC bench to verify how Mallya’s case came up before it

SC bench to verify how Mallya's case came up before it
SC bench to verify how Mallya’s case came up before it

The hearing on allegations by banks that beleaguered businessman Vijay Mallya had allegedly transferred USD 40 million to his children violating court orders, could not take place in the Supreme Court today as it came up before a different bench.

The bench said it would verify how the case filed against Mallya by a consortium of banks, led by the State Bank of India, was listed before it when another apex court bench was already hearing the matter.

“There is a system of listing. It cannot be listed like this,” a bench compsiring Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and U U Lalit said after it was apprised that the case was being heard by another bench headed by Justice Kurian Joseph.

“We will verify how this matter has been listed before us,” it said and posted the matter for hearing on March 3.

At the outset, the bench was informed that this matter was being heard by another bench comprising Justices Joseph and R F Nariman.

When the court said it would hear the case only after verifying how this matter was listed before it, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, representing the banks, said “my submission is that this matter should not go to another bench”.

The bench said “but there must be some reason. We will check it”.

Earlier, a bench headed by Justice Joseph had asked Mallya to file his response on the allegations by the banks that he had allegedly transferred USD 40 million to his children in “flagrant violation” of various judicial orders.

The banks had alleged that the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Karnataka High Court have been violated by Mallya by transferring the amount to his children, that he and his firm owed over Rs 6,200 crore to the banks and the money should have been deposited here.

( Source – PTI )