Delhi High Court on Mallya’s plea against ‘wilful defaulter’s tag of SBI: Court directs Mallya to approach appropriate forum

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

New Delhi: Yesterday, on 3rd day of March, the High Court, Delhi has refused to hear the plea sought by Vijay Mallya against the decision of State Bank of India, where he was named as a ‘wilful defaulter’, by directing him to approach an appropriate forum.

It was also seen that the Counsel representing Vijay Mallya, after sensing the court’s mood, requested to the Bench comprising of Justice- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, that to allow them the withdrawal of their petition. And as such, the court has granted favour to the request of the counsel.

In such request the withdrawal of petition, the one filed by UBHL- United Breweries Holdings, which is also owned by the businessman, was also sought and the court also granted the same.

The senior advocate- Rajiv Nayar representing Businessman- Vijay Mallya requested court in his behalf and the court as such allowed the request offering them an opportunity to approach before the an appropriate forum for remedial measures, if any provided under the provisions of law.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

It was seen in the case that the Businessman- Vijay Mallya had approached the honourable Delhi High Court challenging the decision of 31st day of October, 2015, of the Grievance Redressal Committee of State Bank of India, where the Businessman and UBHL were declared as ‘wilful defaulters’. He claimed the said name and declaration given against him is illegal.

The businessman moved to the High court, on the ground that it has jurisdiction to hear his plea, as he is the ‘resident of Delhi’ and also he is the member at Rajya Sabha and has received all the correspondence at the same address. Such contentions were opposed by the SBI.

In his plea, the Businessman has sought to maintain that there was ‘violation of natural justice’. The Court, however, refused to hear his plea saying that the court cannot confer the jurisdiction and the court cannot also have two different bench hearing the same matter. Also, court in its observation said, the Bombay High Court has earlier hear the same issue, then what is the problem for taking this issue before that court only.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="4" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

Adv. Faim Khalilkhan Pathan