(Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
State Bank of India and Ors. _______________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. and Ors. _________________ Respondent(s)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6828-6831/2016, decided on April 26, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. By order dated 7th April, 2016, the respondent No. 3 was directed to file an affidavit on two aspects; 1) disclose the details of his properties – movable, immovable, tangible, intangible, shareholding, etc. both in India and abroad in his name and in the name of his wife and children, as on 31.03.2016; 2) disclose in the affidavit as to what is the amount he is prepared to deposit before this Court so as to show his bonafides in the negotiation for settlement of the dues with the banks. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent was also requested to get instruction on the probable date of appearance of the 3rd respondent in person before this Court.
2. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel submits that he has no instruction as to the date on which the 3rd respondent would appear before this Court. As far as the second aspect is concerned, it is stated in the affidavit that an aggregate of Rs. 1,591 crores can be deposited before this Court and that amount is to be released from (i) sale of shares by UBHL (Respondent No. 2) of United Spirits Limited, (ii) sale of shares by KFIL (Respondent No. 4) of United Spirits Limited and (iii) by getting of refund of the amount deposited by Kingfisher Airlines with Airbus Industries.
3. It is also submitted that a further amount of Rs. 1,329 crores could be deposited by appropriation from the various courts deposits.
4. As far as the first aspect is concerned, the respondent No. 3 Dr. Vijay Mallya has filed an affidavit disclosing his personal assets to the extent of Rs. 20,174,146,601. Majority of the assets are under attachment by the Income Tax Department.
5. The assets of the 3rd respondent in abroad and those of the wife and children have been furnished in a sealed cover which we have opened in the Court.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 submit that the wife of Respondent No. 3 had been estranged for long and all the properties are her own properties. So also the properties held by the children are their own. In short the respondent No. 3 does not have any benami property either in the name of his estranged wife or of his children. All the properties disclosed to the Court in sealed cover in the separate annexures are individual properties of the wife and children. It is also submitted that the personal guarantee executed by the 3rd respondent with the banks do not cover his assets abroad. We have no problem in recording the above submissions and we do so. However, we find that in the order dated 7.4.2016, this court had directed the Respondent No. 3 to disclose the assets in an affidavit. The only purpose for disclosing the assets was to have a fair idea for the petitioners to go for a meaningful settlement on the proposals made by respondent No. 3. There is no petition before us for clarification or modification of order dated 07.04.2016. In the above circumstances, we do not find any tenable objection in disclosing these assets to the petitioners.
7. The learned senior counsel further submits that the wife and children are American citizens and they are not the parties before this Court. Whatever protection is available to them under law, they are free to avail. This disclosure is only for the purpose of enabling the petitioners to have a fair idea for a meaningful settlement.
8. We are distressed to note that respondent No. 3 has not responded to our order dated 7th April, 2016 in the letter and spirit of the said order. He was to show us his bonafides by showing the color of money in the form of a substantial deposit towards dues in the region of 18,000 crores to arrive at a meaningful settlement. It appears there is no bonafides in his offer for settlement. Apparently, statements made by counsel on his behalf were made only as a ploy to gain time.
9. The Registry is directed to disclose the statement of assets furnished in the sealed cover, to the petitioners.
10. We also record the submission made by the learned Attorney General that the petitioners are disputing the veracity of the submissions made by respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.
11. There will also be a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore to dispose of Original Application No. 766 of 2013 and any other applications pending before the Tribunal expeditiously and in any case within two months from the date of receipt of this order by the Tribunal.
———
