An interesting exchange took place in the Supreme Court between the bench and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during the proceedings on winding-up of liquor baron Vijay Mallya-held United Breweries (Holding) Ltd.
The law officer was appearing for the banks’ consortium led by the State Bank of India as the court took up the appeal by the 102-year-old parent company of the UB Group.
As Mehta repeatedly called Mallya a fugitive who does not deserve any indulgence by the Court, the bench of Justices Uday U Lalit and Vineet Sharan reminded the law officer that he was appearing for the banks and not the government.
“This is not the PMLA proceedings. And please remember that you are representing the banks,” Justice Sharan told Mehta.
Mehta replied: “I am aware of that my lords. But my duty will not diminish in a matter of national interests only because I am appearing for the banks.”
The bench then wanted to know from the Solicitor General as to why it should not be a matter of examination when a person says that his assets are more than his liabilities.
Mehta, on his part, pointed out that these proceedings are being misused by Mallya in the extradition case, by claiming some settlement talks are on.
He added that the PMLA court proceeding are completely different and that the assets there would be sold after conviction. Hence, SG said the assets attached cannot be considered.
But the bench replied: “Assets are only attached and not confiscated since there is no conviction as on date. So the question remains why they cannot be considered.”
Mehta reiterated that the court cannot forget it is dealing with a fugitive offender.
“And you cannot forget that we are not dealing with the man in these proceedings. We are dealing with a company,” retorted Justice Sharan.
The SG, at this, said: “This court can still not forget who is the man behind the company. I cannot lose sight of the nation’s interest.”
But the bench again emphasised that Mehta was appearing only for the banks, not for the government. “If you want to make these submissions, you better wear two hats…both the hats. Only one hat won’t do,” Justice Lalit told Mehta.
The judge added that it was not issuing notice at this juncture on the SG’s request but Mehta should appear on the next date also for the Centre if he were to advance such submissions.
The bench also asked Mehta to get instructions on a specific point that when banks had also challenged the attachment of Mallya’s assets, why the attached assets cannot be considered on the point of computation.
“Satisfy our conscience when the banks are themselves in appeal against the attachment orders, why should we not examine what he has to say?” the bench told Mehta. The court will hear the matter next after two weeks.
The winding-up order was passed in February 2018 for its failure to pay admitted liabilities to unsecured and secured creditors, including banks, as per the corporate guarantees extended to Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.
As per the Karnataka high court’s calculation made in February 2018, the total due of UBHL was around Rs 7,000 crore.
Comments
0 comment