New Delhi: In an effort to ward off the ‘fugitive tag’, liquor baron Vijay Mallya on Thursday moved the Supreme Court, claimed reports. The development came a day after he said that all the allegations against him are false while offering to pay back the full amount of the principal loan he owed to multiple banks. Also Read - Vijay Mallya Has Applied For ‘Another Route’ to Stay in UK, Says Lawyer
Requesting the banks and government to take back the money, Mallya took to Twitter on Wednesday saying, “Respectfully to all commentators, I cannot understand how my extradition decision or the recent extradition from Dubai and my settlement offer are linked in any way.” Also Read - UPSC Prelims: Will Aspirants Get an Extra Attempt? Check Central Govt's Decision
On June 22, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has sought to declare Mallya as ‘fugitive offender’ and to confiscate all his assets that were worth Rs 12,500 crore. On June 30, the PMLA court considered the application filed by the agency. The agency had registered two separate complaints of money laundering under PMLA against Mallya’s Kingfisher Airlines Limited and United Breweries Holdings Limited and others.
However, in September, the absconding loan defaulter told the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court that “he was not a fugitive economic offender” (FEO) under the Act. He also refused the scheduled offence of money laundering against him. Vijay Mallya’s case is likely to be heard by the SC on Friday.
As per reports, Mallya has repeatedly persuaded the Indian authorities to accept his settlement before the Karnataka High Court. He claimed that the loans that he took from banks were utilised to keep the Kingfisher Airlines afloat. He also alleged that the United Breweries had contributed to the state exchequers.
Mallya who is currently in London absconded from India on March 2, 2016. He has been charged for defrauding various banks to the tune of Rs 9,000 crore. On December 10, a judgement at Westminster Magistrate’s Court on India’s extradition case against him is likely to be pronounced.