The apex court also sought an indication from him when he will appear before it.
It asked Mallya, who owes over Rs 9,000 crore to around 17 banks, to deposit a "substantial amount" with it to "prove his bonafide" that he was "serious" about meaningful negotiations and settlement.
The directions by the bench, comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman, came after a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India "unanimously rejected" the proposal in the current form offered by Mallya and his companies to pay Rs 4,000 crore by September towards settlement of his loan.
After a brief hearing of 20 minutes, it posted the matter for further hearing on April 26.
At the outset, the consortium of banks told the apex court that it was not averse to the settlement but Mallya has to show his bona fides by being present in the country.
"Vijay Mallya has to prove his bona fides by presenting himself for suitable negotiation and presenting a contingency plan that he is getting money from X and Y and then he will pay to the banks," senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the consortium of banks, said.
Divan said the proposal given by Mallya in the present form has been rejected and conveyed to him, after which he made a second offer with "slight modification" last evening which is under consideration.
For suitable negotiation, Mallya needs to be in the country and before the court so that it is known what he plans to do and how, he said.
Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for Mallya,
said they have got the response from the consortium of banks after which they have replied to it last evening.
He also said that disclosure of assets were made successively to the banks from 2010 to 2012.
However, the bench said "So now why don't you update the assets?"
The banks also wanted disclosure of assets of Mallya's other close relatives and former relatives, including his ex- wife, which was objected by his counsel.
However, the bench said Mallya has to disclose the assets of his wife and children, besides himself.
Taking on record the submissions, the bench said "Respondents (Mallya and his companies) should disclose all the properties - movable, immovable, tangible, intangible - and shareholding, both in India and abroad, to show his bona fides for the substantial negotiation," the bench said.
The court also allowed Oriental Bank of Commerce to be impleaded as party in the matter.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
