The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday made it clear that a petition filed by businessman Vijay Mallya - currently a fugitive and residing in the UK - may not stand in law. Mallya had approached the court seeking detailed statements of how much money banks have recovered from him and his former venture, Kingfisher Airlines. The hearing took place before Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, who appeared unimpressed with the route taken by the petitioner.
Background
Mallya’s petition argued that while Kingfisher was ordered to repay around ₹6,200 crore after its winding up, banks have reportedly recovered nearly ₹14,000 crore through attachment and sale of his properties. He claimed that he now needs a clear break-up of recoveries, adjustments, and remaining dues. His lawyers insisted the purpose was transparency, especially because Mallya is also involved in insolvency-related proceedings in the United Kingdom.
However, the banks, represented by Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, pushed back sharply. He pointed out that liquidation proceedings for Kingfisher and United Breweries Holdings Limited are already underway before the Company Court. “This writ petition reads like an RTI application,” he remarked, suggesting that Mallya was simply trying to obtain business records through a judicial shortcut.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kanneganti questioned why Mallya approached the High Court at all. The bench remarked, “How is this maintainable before this court? Why should this court entertain all this?” The court said that if Mallya truly wanted these details, he must go before the Company Court where the liquidation is being supervised.
The counsel for the official liquidator added another layer, stating Mallya had no legal standing (locus) to even file this petition. He noted that action worth ₹17,000 crore was already pending against Mallya. He also reminded the court of restrictions under the Companies Act that apply to disqualified directors such as him.
When Mallya’s lawyer requested time for a senior counsel to appear, the bench responded, “You cannot file this petition before this court. Whatever you want, any details, you can go before the company court. Let your Senior counsel come. We will dismiss this in his presence.”
Huilgol additionally mentioned that Mallya had temporarily withdrawn insolvency proceedings in the UK to await the outcome of this petition. The court responded that a petitioner’s motive does not affect the legal question of maintainability.
Decision
The High Court did not pass a final order but orally indicated the writ petition is prima facie not maintainable. The matter has now been listed for the next hearing on November 4, where the court may formally dismiss the plea.
Case: Vijay Mallya vs Recovery Officer-II & Others
Case Number: WP 3357/2025
Next Hearing: Court listed matter for November 4