SC seeks Vijay Mallya's overseas asset details in four weeks

Liquor baron Vijay Mallya today drew flak from the Supreme Court for not making full disclosure of his overseas properties, which asked him to furnish complete details of his assets abroad within a month.
A bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman also pulled up Mallya for not giving details of USD 40 million which he had allegedly received from British firm Diageo in February this year, saying it was of the "prima facie view" that proper disclosure as per its earlier order was not made.
"We are prima facie of the view that the report has not made a proper disclosure in respect of our order of April 7 directing to make complete disclosure of assests and in particular, the receipt of USD 40 million as to when it was received and how it has been dealt till date," the bench said.

The apex court asked Mallya to make a detailed disclosure of his assets abroad like he had done while disclosing his properties in India and that too, within four weeks.
It said that the details Mallya filed earlier in his disclosure statement about his foreign properties do not have reference of cash in hand or bank details and details of assets like he has done for those in India.
At the outset, the bench observed that if Mallya wanted to come clean he would have told the court about the USD 40 million which was a huge amount deposited in the bank account.

"We are not happy the way you (Mallya) filed your statement," the bench observed, adding that it cannot find any details of USD 40 million or where it has been expended, in the report furnished to the apex court by the liquor baron.

"USD 40 million dollar was a cash in hand and you (Mallya) have not told us what you did with that amount. Our direction was disclosure of assets and cash in hand. Nobody knows what happened with USD 40 million," the court said.
During the hearing, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for consortium of banks, said Mallya has taken the court for a ride and has tried to deceive the court by not giving complete details of his assets.

"Point is what was shown to the court was assets and properties but he (Mallya) did not tell to the court about the USD 40 million he received from Diageo. He has taken court for a ride by not giving complete details," Rohatgi said.
The Attorney General further alleged that the USD 40
million belonged to the consortium of banks which was now stashed in Mallya's Swiss bank account and it should be brought back to India or the Supreme Court.
Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for Mallya, said the disclosure of assets was made as per the court's directions.

"The court's direction was to disclose assets in India and abroad as on March 31, 2016 but there was no direction for disclosure of transaction, receipts and expenses," he said, adding that Mallya has disclosed his account balance as on a particular date.
With regard to USD 40 million, Vaidyanathan said the amount may have been spent or used and whatever the assets remained as on March 31, was included in the details that had been furnished to the court.
"If today the court directs to give details of USD 40 million, then we can furnish the details with regard to the amount or any other amount," he said.

To this, the court said, "We had asked for complete details of assets and not list of properties. Why did you not tell us about the USD 40 million? You consider USD 40 million as not your assets. We want to know where this amount went."
Vaidyanathan said no orders of the court were violated and whatever the directions were, those have been complied with.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on November 24.
The consortium of banks including SBI had on August 29 told the Supreme Court that Mallya had deliberately not made full disclosure of his assets including the USD 40 million which he received on February 25 from Diageo.

Rohatgi had earlier told the court that Mallya had
provided wrong details of his assets in a sealed cover to the apex court.
AG had alleged that a lot of information had also been concealed, including a cash transaction to the tune of Rs 2500 crore, which amounted to contempt of court.
Rohatgi had said the liquor baron had also not agreed to deposit "substantial amount" as part of of Rs 9,400 crore loan due on him to establish his bonafide.
Mallya had maintained that the banks had no right over information regarding his overseas movable and immovable assets as he was an NRI since 1988.

He had also claimed that as an NRI, he was not obliged to disclose his overseas assets, and added that his wife and three children, all US citizens, also need not disclose their assets.
The court on April 7 had directed Mallya to disclose by April 21 the total assets owned by him and his family in India and abroad while seeking an indication from him when he would appear before it.
It had 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.