November 06, 2024 04:38 (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Union Minister HD Kumaraswamy booked for threatening cop probing into mining case | Supreme Court upholds validity of Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Act | Not all private properties are community resources that govt can take over: Supreme Court | Pakistan's Lahore has become world's most polluted city with an AQI of 1900 on Sunday | Indian Army 'successfully completes' patrolling to a key point in Ladakh's Depsang region
Vijay Mallaya loses bankruptcy petition amendment case to consortium of Indian banks in London court: Report
Vijay Mallya

Vijay Mallaya loses bankruptcy petition amendment case to consortium of Indian banks in London court: Report

| @indiablooms | 19 May 2021, 01:37 am

London/IBNS: The High Court in London has upheld an application of a consortium of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI), seeking amendment in their bankruptcy petition, for waiving off their security on Vijay Mallaya's assets in India, said media reports.

Chief Insolvencies and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Michael Briggs gave the judgment in banks' favour, declaring that no public policy exists that stops a waiver of security rights, as contended by Mallya’s lawyers, said a Mint report.

The hearing took place via video conferencing.

The judge set July 26 as the date for final arguments for and against issuing a bankruptcy order against Mallya following allegations by banks that Mallaya was trying to “kick matters into the long grass" and called on the “bankruptcy petition to be brought to its inevitable end", according to the report.

“I order that permission be given to amend the petition to read as follows: ‘The Petitioners (banks) having the right to enforce any security held are willing, in the event of a bankruptcy order being made, to give up any such security for the benefit of all the bankrupt’s creditors’," Justice Briggs’ judgment read, the report said.

“There is nothing in the statutory provisions that prevent the Petitioners from giving up security," he noted, stated the report.

“In my judgment the simple stance taken by Justice Gowda that Section 47 PIA 1920 is evidence of the ability of a secured creditor to relinquish the creditor’s security is to be preferred," the ruling noted in connection with the

The Indian banks, represented by the law firm TLT LLP and barrister Marcia Shekerdemian.

“Dr Mallya should have been extradited by now. He was refused permission to go to the Supreme Court in May last year," Shekerdemian underscored in reference to one of Mallya’s arguments that the corruption cases against him are “politically motivated", added the report.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.