Vijay Mallya asked the Karnataka High Court to halt banks from charging interest on recovered funds, claiming they have received over Rs 10,000 crore against a debt of Rs 6,203 crore. The court postponed the case to November 12.
Fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya on Tuesday urged the Karnataka High Court to direct banks to stop charging interest on amounts they have already recovered from him and his former airline, Kingfisher (United Breweries Holdings Limited).
Speaking before Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, Mallya’s senior counsel, Sajan Poovayya, argued that the banks had already received far more than what was owed and could not continue to levy interest on the recovered sums.
“See the objections of the bank where they say money is not received and still amount is due. Bank is using the money, my interest meter should stop ticking,” Poovayya told the court, LiveLaw reported.
“You (bank) have received the money and cannot now say that cases are pending adjudication and thus recovery made through court cannot be construed as final recovery,” the counsel added.
Mallya’s petition seeks a detailed statement of accounts showing all recoveries made against him and his airline over time. Poovayya explained that the debt recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) covered Rs 6,203 crore with interest at 11.5 per cent, but recoveries so far had exceeded Rs 10,000 crore. He referred to press releases and official reports, including statements from the Finance Ministry, confirming that the banks had already received the full amount owed.
The lawyer stressed that since the banks had recovered the sums, interest should not continue to accrue. Poovayya also highlighted that Mallya’s assets were attached under PMLA proceedings, and the recovery process had been ongoing for years. He contended that all he sought was transparency on the amounts recovered so far.
Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, appearing for the banks, questioned the maintainability of the plea. He argued that Mallya, declared a fugitive, could not selectively approach courts and that all recoveries were considered temporary under statutory provisions.
Huilgol also pointed out that Mallya was not submitting to Indian courts and that writ relief under Article 226 was discretionary, not a guaranteed right.
The court asked why similar information could not be sought from the company court, as Kingfisher is under liquidation. Poovayya explained that the DRT recovery did not report to the company court and that multiple authorities were involved, justifying the High Court petition.
The matter has been adjourned, with the official liquidator directed to file objections by November 10. The case will be heard again on November 12.
