Thief or no thief? What cases say about Vijay Mallya
Fugitive billionaire
Vijay Mallya
, accused of defaulting on bank loans, has made an elaborate show of contrition. Appearing on a four-hour podcast, Mallya, who is living in the UK, apologised for the downfall of his
Kingfisher Airlines
. Accepting responsibility for the collapse of the airline, Mallya said, "I apologise to everyone for the failure of
Kingfisher Airlines
."
But he also asserted that he is not a thief. Responding to charges of financial wrongdoing, Mallya said, "You may call me a fugitive, but I didn't run away. I flew on a prescheduled visit. Fair enough, I didn't return for reasons that I consider are valid… so if you want to call me a fugitive, go ahead. But where is the 'chor' (thief) coming from? Where is the 'chori' (theft)?"
During the podcast, he also expressed willingness to consider returning to India under specific conditions. "If I have a fair assurance of a fair trail and dignified existence in India, I will think about it (returning to India) seriously." Mallya said the money he owed to banks has been recovered several times over from him.
Industrialist
Harsh Goenka
has come to Mallya's defence. Responding to what Mallya said in the podcast, Goenka wrote on X: "Vijay Mallya lived the high life, yes. Defaulted, yes. Unlike most others, his Rs 9,000+ crore dues are now reportedly settled. Meanwhile, bigger defaulters walk free with much fatter haircuts from banks. If dues remain, the banks should clearly say so. If not, why is he still a political punching bag? Justice must be fair, not selective."
"Thank you Harsh," Mallya responded on X. "The Union Finance Ministry has confirmed in writing that Banks have recovered Rs 14,100 crores from me against a DRT judgement debt of Rs 6,203 crores. Why the blatant discrimination?"
Live Events
Mallya owes
Indian banks
approximately Rs 9,000 crore. He fled India in 2016 and has been residing in the UK since then. In December last year, Finance Minister
Nirmala Sitharaman
informed Lok Sabha that the
Enforcement Directorate
(ED) had so far restituted Rs 14,000 crore worth of assets to various banks from the sale of Mallya's assets.
What the cases against Mallya say
Mallya may believe that he is not a thief and also appear to be a victim instead of a perpetrator, but there is certainly far more to the cases against him than simply a matter of repayment of outstanding loan. Investigating agencies have accused Mallya of criminal conspiracy, fraud and
money laundering
on several counts. Bank officials were also arrested in the Kingfisher Airlines case. Below are the main cases against Mallya:
Loan default
and fraud
Rs 6,900 crore loan default:
In 2016, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a case against Mallya and Kingfisher Airlines for allegedly defaulting on loans amounting to Rs 6,900 crore from a consortium of 17 public sector banks. The charges include criminal conspiracy and cheating under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Rs 900 crore
IDBI Bank
loan:
In 2017, the CBI charged Mallya and others in a Rs 900 crore loan default case involving IDBI Bank. The charges include criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption. The agency alleged that the loan was granted without proper procedures, resulting in a loss of public funds.
Rs 180 crore
Indian Overseas Bank
loan:
In 2024, a special CBI court issued a non-bailable warrant against Mallya in connection with a Rs 180 crore loan default case involving Indian Overseas Bank. The CBI alleges that Mallya caused a wrongful loss to the bank by willfully defaulting on the loan.
Money laundering
Enforcement Directorate (ED) case: The ED has charged Mallya under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The agency alleges that Kingfisher Airlines diverted at least Rs 3,547 crore of the loan received from banks. Instances of alleged diversion include over-invoicing of aircraft lease rentals, payments for a corporate jet used exclusively by Mallya, and transfers to the Force India Formula One team and the Royal Challengers Bangalore IPL team.
Service tax evasion
Rs 100 crore service tax default: In 2012 and 2015, the service tax department filed complaints against Kingfisher Airlines for non-payment of over Rs 100 crore in service tax, despite collecting this amount from passengers. A Mumbai court issued non-bailable warrants against Mallya and others in connection with this case.
Corporate misgovernance and fraud
Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) case: In July 2016, the SFIO issued notices to 17 companies for taking loans from banks to finance the defunct Kingfisher Airlines. The investigation uncovered instances of corporate misgovernance and financial irregularities.
Mallya's accusation of recovering debt "multiple times over"
In February this year, Mallya moved the Karnataka high court challenging the debt recovery proceedings against him. In his petition, Mallya sought a statement by the banks of accounts for the amounts owed by him to United Breweries Holdings Limited (in liquidation) and other certificate debtors. It was submitted that the amount due had already been recovered, and even still additional recovery proceedings had been carried out against Mallya.
"Parallelly there was a debt recovery proceeding, in that a sum of Rs 6200 crore was ordered to be paid by the primary debtor Kingfisher and the UBHL which was the guarantor. That order also attained finality," Mallya's advocate said.
"However, between 2017 the Rs 6200 crore was recovered multiple times over and there is an admitted statement which I have filed, as on date, the recovery officer says Rs 10,200 crore has been recovered. While the official liquidator says banks have made their money restored. Lastly a statement is made in the Parliament by the Finance Minister that 14,000 crore is recovered," he added.
(With TOI inputs)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
36 minutes ago
- Hans India
7 Maoists surrender in Dantewada
Dantewada: Seven Maoists, two of them carrying cash rewards on their heads, surrendered in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh on Friday, a police official said. The cadres turned themselves in before police and CRPF officials citing disappointment at the growing differences within the outlawed CPI (Maoist), the harsh forest life and the movement's hollow ideology, he said. The official identified the surrendered cadres as Juglu alias Sundum Kowasi (23), Dasha alias Burku Podiam (26), Bhoja Ram Madvi (48), Lakhma alias Suti (26), Ratu alias Othe Kowasi (25), Sukhram Podiyam (25) and Pandru Ram Podiyam (45). "Juglu and Dasha carried a bounty of Rs 50,000 each. The surrendered Naxalites were involved in incidents like damaging roads, cutting trees, putting up Naxalite banners, posters and pamphlets during 'bandh' called by Maoists.
The Wire
37 minutes ago
- The Wire
After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Security After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself Sanjiv Krishan Sood 4 minutes ago While India's armed response to the Pahalgam massacre was swift and strategically effective, the deeper questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy and the sustainability of retaliatory doctrine remain unresolved. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now If Operation Sindoor began as a limited attack on nine locations linked to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Pakistani response prompted the Indian defence forces to undertake a number of actions aimed at Pakistan's military establishment. Through precision strikes on militant infrastructure, followed by carefully calibrated aggression, the Indian Air Force and Army degraded key assets while preventing any substantial damage to our own military or civilian infrastructure. The response to the massacre at Pahalgam carried out by terrorists linked to Pakistan was measured but resolute. It was aimed as prompting Islamabad to reassess its state policy of harbouring and sponsoring terror. India's declaration that all acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war marks a significant shift in doctrine. That said, six weeks after the Pahalgam tragedy and nearly a month since the cessation of hostilities, several critical questions remain unanswered by both our security and political leadership. The first is whether Operation Sindoor achieved its stated objectives. The Prime Minister, in a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, gave the armed forces a free hand to destroy the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. On the nights of May 6th and 7th, nine terrorist camps were reportedly neutralized, and numerous militants killed. But can we truly say the infrastructure has been dismantled? Is the deterrent strong enough to prevent future attacks? The evidence doesn't inspire confidence. Since the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strikes following Pulwama, Pakistan-based terrorists have continued to strike at Indian targets. Pathankot, Kathua, Udhampur, and other places have seen terror attacks even after high-profile retaliatory actions. Supporting terrorism in India appears to be entrenched in Pakistan's state doctrine. The reported decision of the Pakistani government to offer financial aid to the families of slain terrorists and rebuild destroyed camps signals no intent to step back. More troubling is the international silence. Aside from muted support from Russia, India has struggled to garner vocal backing from major global powers. In contrast, Pakistan received overt support from China and Turkey—both of whom extended diplomatic cover and material support, including drones and modern aircraft used during the brief conflict. Despite a two-week window before striking the terrorist camps, India failed to shape global opinion or present a compelling narrative. This diplomatic vacuum echoes the aftermath of Balakot, when Pakistan successfully projected its version of events internationally. The all-party delegations India dispatched to various countries gained limited traction, mostly among nations with marginal influence on global affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to India's success in 1971 and during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it managed to effectively justify its actions and rally international opinion. Why the shift? The present government's handling of foreign policy and communication strategy deserves closer scrutiny. That brings us to the ceasefire itself. By May 10th, Indian forces reportedly had the upper hand. Yet it was the US president who first announced the ceasefire, followed by India's own foreign secretary. President Trump's repeated claims of having mediated the ceasefire raise uncomfortable questions. Has India, which long resisted international mediation and stood firmly for bilateralism, allowed itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan once again? While the decision to end hostilities may have been strategically sound, it was an anti-climax for a public whipped into a frenzy by media speculation and political rhetoric. Talk of reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and total victory created unrealistic expectations. The actual motivations for the ceasefire remain speculative. It may have been American pressure, given the escalatory risks between two nuclear powers. Or it could have been India's own calculation—that sufficient punishment had been meted out, and further escalation would only risk unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly in areas like Poonch and Rajouri. The safety of civilians in border areas is another glaring concern. While cities were issued alerts, conducted blackouts, and prepared for contingencies, residents living within range of Pakistani small arms and artillery fire were left dangerously exposed. Civilian deaths and property destruction in border towns were substantial. The state must ensure compensation and future protection for these vulnerable populations. The economic implications of conflict also merit discussion. India, now a $4 trillion economy, has far more to lose than Pakistan in a prolonged war. With vast developmental needs and social infrastructure demands, even short conflicts strain national resources. A quick resolution to conflict is, in this sense, in India's own interest. But that only makes the need for a coherent and sustainable response doctrine even more urgent. Our new policy of equating terror attacks with acts of war raises critical strategic questions. What is the threshold for retaliation? Would attacks outside Kashmir trigger the same response as those within? Does the number of casualties factor into the decision? Can every incident justify cross-border action without risking long-term regional stability and international isolation? Notably, India's responses have escalated over time—from Uri to Balakot to Sindoor. Where does this trajectory end, especially with a politically unstable and militarily erratic neighbour? The potential for future Chinese involvement further complicates matters. India's strategic community must urgently engage with these questions. Yet, above all, the most urgent question remains: how was the Pahalgam massacre allowed to happen in the first place? Why did our intelligence agencies fail to detect preparatory activity? How did they miss the apparent increase in satellite imagery demand for Pahalgam in February? Such lapses are inexcusable—they cost 26 innocent lives at Pahalgam, and many more in the conflict that followed. These intelligence failures are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern seen in Pulwama, Pathankot, Udhampur, Kathua, Mumbai, and other attacks. Yet accountability remains elusive. Why was there no security detail at such a high-profile tourist site? Who in the chain of command failed—the SP, DIG, IG, or DG? Are our forces overly fixated on protecting politicians and VIPs at the cost of ordinary citizens? Some may argue that providing security everywhere is impractical. But complete absence of police presence at a known tourist destination is indefensible. Did complacency set in after the abrogation of Article 370 and the successful state elections, leading officials to believe that the threat had passed? And finally, why do these tragedies keep recurring? Has any impartial inquiry been conducted into past lapses? Have recommendations been implemented? The public has a right to know whether lessons are being learned, or merely filed away. These questions may sound rhetorical. But unless they are asked, addressed, and acted upon, we risk reliving the same tragedy. The lives lost at Pahalgam demand more than patriotic fervour and retaliatory strikes. They demand introspection, accountability, and a strategy that looks beyond the immediate headlines. Sanjiv Krishan Sood was additional director general of the BSF. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart Modi Says 'Not Blood, Hot Sindoor' Flows In His Veins In First Public Address Since Op Sindoor Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court From Flowers to Sarees, A Story of PM Modi's Communication Imagery Post-Operation Sindoor By Calling For the Boycott of Foreign Goods, Modi Contradicts Himself Facing Pushback, Derision and Anger, BJP Says News of Sindoor Distribution Plans 'Fake' View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
For a $5 trillion economy, India must embrace cutting-edge tech
The Indian economy is on the threshold of crossing another milestone and becoming the fourth-largest in the world. It is a commendable achievement for a country that began its journey as an independent nation in 1947 with a meagre $33-billion economy. Decades of British exploitation left it significantly weakened and poor. The Jawaharlal Nehru government's Soviet-style central planning, while promoting heavy industries and the public sector, led to low economic growth of 3-4 per cent, pejoratively described as the 'Hindu rate of growth'. In 40 years, it could only reach the $266 billion mark. The first major leap came in 1991 when the Narasimha Rao government introduced economic liberalisation and unleashed the potential of Indian entrepreneurs. The opportunity offered by the digital revolution with the introduction of the internet was quickly seized by some of India's brightest tech entrepreneurs. The Indian economy grew manifold in the next two decades on the strength of its services economy, which contributed 60 per cent of the nation's GDP. The economy crossed $2 trillion by the time the Narendra Modi government came to power. The last 10 years have seen the Modi government giving greater emphasis to faster economic growth through programmes like Stand-Up India, Start-Up India and Make in India. The results are there to see. IMF data from May has projected that the Indian economy will overtake Japan this year, reaching the $4.19 trillion mark. Japan was once a $5.8 trillion economy but has shrunk to $ 4.18 trillion due to stagnation and slow growth rates since the 1990s. As India demonstrated promising growth, naysayers rushed forward to raise the hollow bogey of per capita income. Per capita income is determined by factors like the size of the population. India is the world's most populous country. As a result, whatever may be the size of GDP, its per capita figures are bound to remain low. No country's growth can be measured on the criterion of per capita income alone. Although the US is the world's largest economy with a $28 trillion GDP, it ranks seventh in per capita. China, the second-largest economy with $18 trillion, ranks 69. The per capita argument is worthless because even if India becomes the world's largest economy with $30 trillion, it will still be ranked 55th in terms of per capita. The only merit of this argument is that the country should be able to provide better living standards to all its citizens. In democracies, the fruits of economic growth percolate to all sections of society. This is reflected in the consumption patterns. Surveys indicate that the monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) has increased in India by more than 2.5 times in the last 10 years. Interestingly, most of this expenditure was on travel, health and education, indicating healthy growth parameters. Tourism has seen remarkable growth in the last 10 years. China still occupies the first rank in the number of domestic and international travellers. India lagged in this sector for decades due to a lack of disposable income and tourism infrastructure. But today, with the incomes of the middle class growing substantially, Indians have started travelling more. Data indicates about 2.5 billion domestic tourist visits last year. Figures for 2024 indicate that almost 29 million Indians travelled abroad marking a 30 per cent growth. All this indicates healthy economic growth, which has led to the near eradication of baseline poverty and the creation of a strong middle class with disposable income. The Modi government aspires to take the economy to further heights with targets ranging from $ 5 trillion in 2027 to $10 trillion in 2035. The current impressive growth is a result of corrective measures taken by the government. It removed parallel economy, allowed proper distribution of wealth and encouraged greater consumption. But the path from here needs to be calibrated carefully. Economies grow on the strength not just of consumption but also trade and technology. Quality, quantity and speed are the main determining factors. India and China were leading economies until the middle of the 18th century. But when the industrial revolution occurred first in England and later in America, those two countries surged ahead and became leading economic powers by the dawn of the 20th century. When automation and digitisation progressed in the last decades of the last century, China moved ahead of the curve, emerging as the second-largest economy by 2008. We are now in the post-manufacturing and post-digital era. Growth in frontier technologies will determine a country's economic future. A country of India's size and capability cannot just think perpetually in terms of catching up with the developed West and the rest. It has to, instead, think in terms of moving ahead of the curve. We missed the first two industrial revolutions as we were a slave nation at that time. We benefitted partially from the third, digital revolution of the 1980s and '90s and became a leader in sectors like IT services. But the Fourth Industrial Revolution, led by Artificial Intelligence (AI), quantum technologies, robotics, space, defence, crypto and bio-engineering calls for new thinking and new priorities. The impressive growth of the Indian economy in the last decade was largely due to the unleashing of its basic potential. The trajectory from here should be more strategic, with greater emphasis on deep-tech R&D, an area in which we lag. It is important to create a climate of hassle-free access to investments in these areas. Only then can India aspire to achieve its goal of becoming a $10 trillion economy in the next 10 years. The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP
