Karnataka HC Dismisses Vijaya Mallya's Review Petition Against Order Directing Deposit Of Rs 3101 Crores [Read Order]
Karnataka High Court has rejected a review petition filed by fugitive economic offender Vijay Mallya, challenging a coordinate bench order which in turn had upheld the order by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), asking Mallya to deposit a sum of Rs.3101 Crore, as a precondition for hearing his appeal against a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) order.
On January 19, 2018, the DRT had ordered the attachment of shares worth an estimated Rs 385.9 million in United Breweries, a company that Mallya had controlled. On March 28, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) made an interim order, directing Mallya to deposit Rs 3,101 crore as a precondition for the appellate tribunal to consider his application against the DRT order. This order was challenged in the High court, which came to be rejected.
In the review petiton, Senior Counsel K G Raghavan argued that "certain "significant events" transpiring between 18.09.2018 and 05.10.2018 having a crucial bearing on the subject could not be placed on record before the passing of the order in review, despite due diligence; if these events were placed on record and adverted to by the court, the outcome of the Writ Petitions would have been different and to the benefit of the petitioner.
The senior counsel advanced that the order in review does not refer to fact that United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd (UBHL) supported by the petitioner had made a bonafide offer of Rs.13,960.31 Crore as on for final settlement, and this non-reference, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
The bench comprising Chief Justice A S Oka and Justice Krishna S Dixit said since the making of the said order by a coordinate bench on the plea made by UBHL, nearly a year has lapsed and nothing concrete has happened pursuant thereto, and not even a rupee has been repaid out of Rs.13,960.31 Crores "offered bonafide for settlement".
"There is nothing significant in the contention of the petitioner as would warrant exercise of review jurisdiction in his favour", observed the bench.
The bench said petitions being devoid of merit, are rejected in limine.