Karnataka High Court Questions Maintainability of Vijay Mallya's Debt Info Plea, Directs Him to Company Court

Bengaluru, India – The Karnataka High Court has orally declared that a writ petition filed by fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya, seeking detailed account statements of his outstanding debts and recoveries made by a consortium of banks, is prima facie not maintainable. The court asserted that the appropriate forum for such a request is the Company Court, which is already overseeing related liquidation proceedings.

The single-judge bench, presided over by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, made the sharp observation during a hearing on Tuesday, casting significant doubt on the procedural validity of Mallya's legal strategy. The petition, filed against the Recovery Officer and others, sought comprehensive information regarding the debt owed by him and his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines, a subsidiary of United Breweries Holdings Limited (UBHL).

“How is this maintainable before this court? Why should this court entertain all this?” Justice Kanneganti questioned Mallya's counsel. “The company petitions are there if you are interested to implead yourself and get all these details... on the face of it the prayer is not maintainable.”

The court’s stance highlights a crucial jurisprudential principle: the importance of approaching the correct legal forum. By suggesting the Company Court as the proper venue, the High Court has reinforced the specialized jurisdiction established to handle complex corporate matters, including liquidation and misfeasance.

The Core of Mallya's Petition

At the heart of Mallya's plea is a claim of significant over-recovery by the banks. He alleges that while the winding-up of Kingfisher Airlines resulted in a court-ordered payment of ₹6,200 crore, the banks have since recovered an amount nearing ₹14,000 crore through the attachment and sale of his assets.

To substantiate this claim, the petition sought specific reliefs:

1. A directive to the banks to furnish a detailed statement of accounts, showing all amounts realized in their favor since the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) issued an amended recovery certificate on April 10, 2017. The plea also requested details of the original owners of the assets used to realize these sums.
   
   
2. A statement of assets—belonging to Mallya, UBHL, or third parties—that remain in the banks' possession but have not yet been utilized to satisfy the alleged debt.
   
   
3. An interim order to stay all further recovery actions, including the sale of his remaining assets, pending the resolution of the petition.

Mallya's legal team sought to use the High Court's writ jurisdiction to compel the banks to provide this information, arguing it was essential for transparency and to prevent what they frame as unjust enrichment.

Arguments from the Respondents

The petition faced stiff opposition from counsel representing the banks and the official liquidator, who argued that Mallya was attempting to bypass the established legal process.

Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, representing the banking consortium, characterized Mallya’s petition as a veiled attempt to gather information for other legal battles. He argued that the plea "reads more in the nature of an application under the Right to Information Act," and that the correct course of action for Mallya would be to file an application before the Company Court, where liquidation proceedings are already active.

Huilgol also revealed a strategic dimension to the petition, informing the court that Mallya is concurrently facing insolvency proceedings in the United Kingdom. He submitted that Mallya had recently withdrawn those proceedings, citing the pendency of this writ petition in Karnataka. “So whatever information comes here he will use it in his insolvency proceedings,” Huilgol contended, suggesting the petition was a tool for a foreign legal case.

Justice Kanneganti, however, dismissed this line of argument, stating that the motive of a petitioner is irrelevant to the primary legal question of a petition's maintainability.

Advocate Krutika Raghavan, appearing for the official liquidator, presented an even stronger challenge to Mallya's standing. She informed the court that her office had already filed an identical application before the Company Court to obtain recovery details from the State Bank of India. Furthermore, she revealed that a misfeasance petition for ₹17,000 crore has been filed against Mallya and other ex-directors of Kingfisher Airlines.

“This (Mallya) is an ex-director against whom I have filed a misfeasance petition for 17,000 crore,” Raghavan stated. “I believe he does not have any locus to maintain this petition itself.” This argument directly questions Mallya’s legal right to bring such a petition, given the ongoing allegations of financial misconduct against him in the very forum the court deemed appropriate.

The Court's Unwavering Stance and Future Course

Despite a request from Mallya’s counsel for time to allow a senior counsel to appear and argue the matter, the court remained firm in its preliminary assessment. Justice Kanneganti made her position clear, effectively foreclosing any detailed arguments on the merits of the case within the writ court.

“You cannot file this petition before this court. Whatever you want, any details, you can go before the company court,” the judge stated. In a clear signal of the petition's likely fate, she added, “Let your Senior counsel come. We will dismiss this in his presence.”

The matter has been adjourned to November 4, 2025. The court’s oral remarks strongly indicate that the hearing will likely result in a formal dismissal on the grounds of non-maintainability, forcing Mallya’s legal team to reroute their efforts to the Company Court if they wish to pursue the matter further.

This development underscores the judiciary's increasing emphasis on procedural propriety and the channeling of disputes to specialized tribunals. For legal practitioners, it serves as a potent reminder that even for high-profile litigants, the choice of the correct legal forum is a fundamental, non-negotiable prerequisite to having a case heard on its merits. The High Court's refusal to entertain the plea, despite its significant financial implications, reinforces the distinct and exclusive jurisdiction of the Company Court in matters of corporate insolvency and liquidation.