Fresh Trouble For Vijay Mallya, CBI Issues Non-Bailable Warrant In ₹180-Crore Loan Default Case

Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya is now facing a fresh legal action by the Central Bureau of Investigation as a special CBI court issued a non-bailable warrant against him in the ₹180-crore loan default case linked to Indian Overseas Bank (IOB).

The NBW was issued against Mallya on June 29 by special CBI court judge SP Naik Nimbalkar, and a detailed order was made available on Monday.

The CBI, in its warrant, said the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines promoter caused a wrongful loss of ₹180 crore for the government-run Indian Overseas Bank by the “willful” non-payment of the loan.

Mallya is currently residing in London and has been declared a fugitive economic offender in the money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The Indian government is currently seeking his extradition.

Citing other non-bailable warrants issued against the 68-year-old businessman after considering CBI submission, and his status as a “fugitive”, the court noted, “this is a fit case to issue an open-ended NBW against him to secure his presence”.

The warrant issued by the CBI court is linked to a cheating case registered by the central agency regarding the alleged division of loans availed by Kingfisher Airlines between 2007 and 2012. The chargesheet says that the loan was issued to the private carrier based on an agreement.

The chargesheet claims that Mallya was dishonest and had the intent to cheat, which is why he “willfully” defaulted on the repayment obligations under the aforesaid loans and caused a wrongful loss of ₹141.91 crore on account of default on loans. An additional loss of ₹38.30 crore was caused by the conversion of loans into shares.

The CBI plea said that Vijay Mallya is “a fugitive and an absconder” who continues to live in England and “subvert the process of law in India.”

Considering the CBI submission, the court said Mallya has absconded, declared a fugitive and NBWs are pending for execution against him in other cases. So no purpose will be served by issuing process (summons) to him.