Vijay Mallya's loan default case: DRT to resume hearing on UBHL's plea countering banks
The Debt Recovery Tribunal in Bengaluru will resume its hearing Monday on the application filed by UBHL and Vijay Mallya seeking cross-examination the "shady" documents submitted by the consortium of bankers with regard to Rs 6,000 crore, which allegedly did not even have the seals of the parties.
Zee Media Bureau
New Delhi: The Debt Recovery Tribunal in Bengaluru will resume its hearing Monday on the application filed by UBHL and Vijay Mallya seeking cross-examination the "shady" documents submitted by the consortium of bankers with regard to Rs 6,000 crore, which allegedly did not even have the seals of the parties.
Submitting grounds for seeking cross-examination of the documents submitted by bankers, Mallya and UBHL's counsel had said the statements of interest levied on loans availed in the documents did not bear signatures and seals.
The documents also did not mention details of the interest the defendants owe to individual banks, the counsel had alleged before DRT Presiding Officer C R Benakanahalli.
The counsel had also alleged that the bankers coerced and threatened Mallya and UBHL to sign the documents to honour further loans as per the agreement agreed upon between the parties.
Countering the submissions made by the defendants, the bankers' counsel had said UBHL and Mallya's application should be disallowed, for the banks have taken due diligence to meet all legal requirements to give loans to Mallya and UBHL.
"The banks, in their submissions, have tabled before DRT and various other courts across India, 2,000-page evidential documents and today the defendants have indulged in nit-picking documents which don't have any importance. It is an attempt to delay the proceedings," he had argued.
However, the defendants have not refuted the outstanding debts of over Rs 6,000 crore, he had said.
Moreover, if the defendants argue that banks had threatened or coerced them to sign documents before giving them further loans, then they can prove them wrong during the hearing of the original application, instead of filing a separate interlocutory application, bankers' counsel had contended.
"We neither coerced nor threatened the defendants before giving them further loans. Can anyone digest this argument that we have threatened them?" he had said.
Moreover, the bankers' counsel had countered the defendants arguments' that the Supreme Court's precedence is more acceptable than the DRT or Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals, which the defendants have quoted to honour their right to cross-examine the documents furnished by them.
Mallya, whose now-defunct group company Kingfisher Airlines owes over Rs 9,000 crore to 17 banks, had left the country on March 2 and is believed to be in the UK.
With Agency Inputs