SC slaps notice on Vijay Mallya for non-disclosure of assets

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice against controversial businessman Vijay Mallya. A Bench headed by justice Kurien Joseph gave Mallya four weeks’ time to respond to the notice.
Liquor baron Mallya owes more than Rs 9000 crore to various banks, on a plea seeking contempt proceedings against him alleging that he has not given full details of his assets to enable the banks to recover their debt.

The apex court had in April asked Mallya to furnish income and assets after the banks claimed the businessman owed them over Rs 9,000 crore. According to the consortium of state-owned banks led by State Bank of India, the details he submitted in a sealed cover before the (SC) bench in April was vague.

Appearing for the complainants’ attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said the liquor baron had violated the court order. “He has not abided by it (order) and was not candid in the disclosure,” Rohatgi told the bench.
He said the disclosure is silent on Rs 2,500 crore he received from Diago just before he left India in February.

“The details are incomplete. For instance, he mentions a yatch. But he does not disclose where it is,” the AG said.
Mallya was asked to reveal details of all the assets, both domestic and foreign, held by him, his wife and children, after the banks rejected his initial offer for settlement.

Mallya had offered Rs 4,000 crore as the first installment. The banks have insisted for his personal presence to work out the negotiations. But Mallya’s advocates have opposed it on the ground the modalities can be arrived upon through video-conferencing. Mallya had requested the court to let the details of his property details remain with the court, which was turned down.

Mallya had offered Rs 4,000 crore as the first installment.
The banks have insisted for his personal presence to work out the negotiations. But Mallya’s advocates have opposed it on the ground the modalities can be arrived upon through video-conferencing.
Mallya had requested the court to let the details of his property details remain with the court, which was turned down. The SC overruled his objections and directed the information be shared with the financial institutions.