13 banks move SC to stop Vijay Mallya, but he's already left India

March 9, 2016

New Delhi, Mar 9: A consortium of 13 banks led by State Bank of India approached the Supreme Court on Tuesday to prevent controversial tycoon Vijay Mallya from leaving the country, but they may have left it for too late. Mallya is believed to have left for a foreign destination a few days ago.

The banks urged the court to stop him from going abroad as they claimed he owed them over Rs 9,000 crore. The banks were represented by attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, indicating the government was backing the petitioners against Mallya, who recently said he wished to settle in London.

Mallya's spokesperson said she had no information about his whereabouts and that he was communicating only through email. A consortium of 13 banks on Tuesday approached the SC, a day after a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) restrained Mallya from disbursing in any manner Rs 515 crore paid to him by liquor major Diageo for exiting United Spirits. But the tribunal refused an interim order to freeze Mallya's passport.

Mallya has reportedly expressed a desire to settle in London following the Rs 515 crore deal with Diageo, the banks said through attorney general Mukul Rohatgi.

Rohatgi told a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and U U Lalit that there was every chance of Mallya slipping out of the country as he had told the media that Diageo would be paying him Rs 515 crore in London as fee for exiting United Spirits.

This is the reason why the petitioners moved the DRT for freezing Mallya's passport, is suance of arrest warrant against him, restraining him from disbursing Rs 515 crore ($75 million) and to seek a direction to Mallya to disclose his entire assets on oath.

The AG said the DRT restrained him from disbursing the amount due from Diageo but did not order freezing of his passport as it failed to appreciate the magnitude of the debt and the possibility of Mallya fleeing the country. The banks then approached the Karnataka High Court for the same relief but did not get any interim order.

After the AG sought an urgent hearing, the CJI posted the petition for hearing on Wednesday. The petitioner banks are SBI, Bank of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India, Indian Overseas Bank, Punjab and Sind Bank, Axis Bank, Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank and IDBI Bank.

The banks said, "The HC failed to protect the interest of the petitioner banks who are yet to recover an amount in excess of Rs 9,000 crore from Kingfisher Airlines, United Breweries Ltd, Vijay Mallya and Kingfisher Finvest (India) Ltd. "Petitioner banks individually advanced to Kingfisher Airlines loans of thousands of crores of rupees. By way of a Master Debt Recast Agreement (MDRA) of December 21, 2010 and other related documents, the existing lands were restructured and treated as a single facility. United Breweries and Mallya have on December 21, 2010 executed both corporate guarantee and personal guarantee promising repayment of the entire amount due to the banks."

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments