Indian banks win UK bankruptcy appeal in Vijay Mallya case
London, Apr 9 (PTI): A consortium of Indian banks, led by State Bank of India, on Wednesday won their court appeal in London to uphold a bankruptcy order against Vijay Mallya in a long-standing legal battle seeking repayment of a judgment debt owed by his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.
High Court judge Anthony Mann ruled in favour of the banks to allow an appeal heard in February, while refusing two applications seeking permission to appeal filed by the 69-year-old businessman, declared a fugitive and wanted for fraud and money laundering charges in India.
“The banks’ pleaded position on security was one which they were entitled to adopt,” Justice Mann ruled.
“The bottom line in relation to this is that the bankruptcy order stands,” he concludes.
Law firm TLT LLP, representing the banks, noted that the ruling confirmed the banks did not hold security over Mallya’s assets and that the bankruptcy petition was correct. The court also found that the realisations from assets attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) were conditional and did not discharge the debt under English law.
“This is a significant result for the banks. TLT are pleased to have delivered this outcome, having acted for the banks since 2017 in relation to the DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) judgment of GBP 1.12 billion, obtained against Dr Mallya,” said Nick Curling, legal director at TLT LLP.
The case dates back to 2017 when the banks registered the DRT’s judgment in the English courts, which pertained to a personal guarantee Mallya had provided in relation to loans made to Kingfisher Airlines. The banks then served Mallya with a bankruptcy petition in September 2018, which he opposed on multiple grounds.
In April 2020, London’s Insolvency & Companies Court (ICC) ruled that the banks held security over Mallya’s assets, rendering the bankruptcy petition partially defective under Section 269 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The banks appealed this finding, and in March 2021 Justice Snowden permitted them to bring the security appeal, which was heard this year and has now been concluded.
In the interim, the banks amended the bankruptcy petition, agreeing they would relinquish any security held if Mallya was declared bankrupt. Mallya had opposed this amendment, arguing it was contrary to Indian law and public policy. However, in April 2021, the ICC ruled that the amendment was not contrary to Indian law or public policy.
“Despite Mallya’s subsequent appeals, including an appeal against the amendment decision and the Bankruptcy Order itself, Sir Anthony Mann sitting as a judge in the High Court delivered a decisive judgment on 9 April 2025. The court allowed the Security Appeal in favour of the banks, refused Mallya’s permission to bring the amendment appeal and the appeal against the bankruptcy order and ultimately upheld the bankruptcy order,” added TLT.
Mallya, who was declared bankrupt in July 2021, is pursuing a separate annulment application in the UK court, which is now scheduled for a directions hearing in October.
“In circumstances where even the (Indian) government confirms that the assets were ‘restored’, it is fanciful to imagine that those recoveries are in any sense conditional. Mallya will, on this basis, pursue with vigour his application to annul the Bankruptcy Order in England in conjunction with proceedings in the Karnataka High Court to compel the banks to provide an accounting and come clean,” said Leigh Crestohl, Mallya’s lawyer at Zaiwalla & Co.
Meanwhile, Mallya remains on bail in the UK while a “confidential” legal matter believed to be related to an asylum application is resolved in connection with the unrelated extradition proceedings.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Actress sexual assault: Court says Prosecution 'miserably' failed to prove conspiracy against Dileep
Kochi (PTI): The prosecution had "miserably" failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Dileep in the sensational 2017 actress sexual assault case, a local court has observed while citing inconsistencies and lack of sufficient evidence against the Malayalam star.
The full judgement of Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese was released late on Friday, and has revealed the judge also pointing out at unsustainable arguments put forth by the prosecution.
"The prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy between accused No.1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused No.8 (Dileep) in executing the offence against the victim," the court held.
It examined in detail, the prosecution's allegation that Dileep had hired the prime accused to sexually assault the survivor and record visuals, including close-up footage of a gold ring she was wearing, to establish her identity.
On page 1130 of the judgment, under paragraph 703, the court framed the issue as whether the prosecution's contention that NS Sunil (Pulsar Suni) recorded visuals of the gold ring worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence, so as to clearly disclose her identity, was sustainable.
The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress' identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.
However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.
As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.
The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.
Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.
The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.
It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.
The court also examined the approvers' statements.
One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim's wedding ring.
The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.
During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.
The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim's identity.
The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim's evidence.
When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the second approver even went to the extent of claiming Dileep had instructed the execution of the crime as the victim's engagement was over.
This showed that the evidence of the second approver regarding the shooting of the ring was untrue, as her engagement had taken place after the crime.
The court further observed that the visuals themselves clearly revealed the victim's identity and that there was no need to capture images of the ring to establish identity.
In paragraph 887, the court examined the alleged motive behind the crime and noted that in the first charge sheet, the prosecution had claimed that accused persons 1 to 6 had kidnapped the victim with the common intention of capturing nude visuals to extort money by threatening to circulate them and there was no mention about Dileep's role in it.
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused had been planning the assault on Dileep's instructions since 2013, noting that the allegation was not supported by reliable evidence.
It similarly ruled out the claim that Suni attempted to sexually assault the victim in Goa in January 2017, stating that witness statements showed no such misconduct when he served as the driver of the vehicle used by the actress there.
The court also discussed various controversies that followed Dileep's arrest and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, ultimately finding that the case had not been proved.
Pronouning its verdict on the sensational case on December 8, the court acquitted Dileep and three others.
Later, the court sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Suni, to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The assault on the multilingual actress, after the accused allegedly forced their way into her car and held it under their control for two hours on February 17, 2017, had shocked Kerala.
Pulsar Suni sexually assaulted the actress and video recorded the act with the help of the other convicted persons in the moving car.
