Vijay mallya news: Recently, a podcast has gone viral on social media, in which fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya has claimed that he is being targeted incorrectly while he has repaid his debt. This podcast, in which Raj Shamani has interviewed Mallya, has been viewed more than 20 million times. Mallya is seeing this as a big attempt to improve his image. However, the records and court conclusions of the ED reverse from Mallya’s claims tell a different story. Let’s understand.
Claim 1: ‘I took a loan of ₹ 6,200 crore and paid ₹ 14,000 crore.’
Truth: Mallya’s ₹ 6,200 crore figure only reflects the original debt taken from the Kingfisher Airlines and a group of 17 banks by the companies concerned. However, under banking rules, interest is charged until a complete payment is made on any loan. In cases of lapse, banks also charge punitive interest and other fees. When Kingfisher Airlines default, the case went to the loan recovery tribunal (DRT) in 2013. According to the DRT order, by April 10, 2019, the total outstanding arrears including principal, accumulated interest and punishment were ₹ 17,781 crore.
Out of this amount, ₹ 10,815 crore was recovered. The recovery was not made by the payment of attached properties monitored by the court, not from the payments made by Mallya, which included Kingfisher Villas in Goa and shares in the United Bruge. After Mallya was declared a fugitive economic criminal, these assets were seized and sold under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to the TOI report, there is still an outstanding amount of ₹ 6,997 crore.
Mallya’s claim to repay ₹ 14,000 crore is misleading on two fronts: first, it combines extortion with voluntary repayment; And second, it ignores interest and punitive charges, which apply to all defaulters. The ₹ 14,000 crore mark appears to be a court order and their assets without consent. In financial and legal sense, repayment means voluntarily disposing of arrears by the borrower. This did not happen in this case.
Claim 2: ‘I did not commit any fraud, I always intended to repay the debt.’
Truth: Mallya describes his actions as an unfortunate result of business failure, suggesting that his intention to repay should free him from wrongdoing. However, Indian law, especially under the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, makes a clear difference between business failure and deliberate lapse.
A intentional defaulter is the one who has the ability to repay but chooses not to do so. In the case of Mallya, Indian banks officially declared him intentionally defaulters, meaning that he had both the means and opportunities to repay, but he deliberately missed out.
In addition, investigative agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have exposed adequate evidence of manipulation of funds. Out of the amount borrowed, about ₹ 3,500 crore was not used for the operational expenses of Kingfisher Airlines, but instead sent institutions like Force India Formula One Team to support the expenses of individual luxury. A high-profile example is a payment of $ 40 million (about ₹ 342 crore) from Diazio in 2016. Despite a permanent personal guarantee agreement with Indian lenders, he transferred the amount to the accounts of his family members – this was a direct violation of the agreement, and the Supreme Court later found him guilty in an contempt case.
The fraud under Indian law does not depend on a person’s intention mentioned, but depends on the pattern of tasks, movement of money and not following agreements. Frequent claims of Mallya’s good intentions are fragmented from financial records, court findings and his own conduct, including his fleeing from India while continuing legal proceedings.
Claim 3: ‘I informed Arun Jaitley before leaving India.’
Truth: Mallya’s claim to inform the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is not officially recorded. Jaitley said in a 2018 blog post and press conversation that Mallya had unwanted him in the corridors of Parliament and mentioned the possible settlement. Jaitley had said that he had asked Mallya to talk to banks. No meeting was scheduled, nor was there any discussion. Mallya has repeatedly used this claim to suggest that he did not run secretly. But a moving comment is not considered formal disclosure.
Claim 4: ‘My case is not of criminal nature. This is only a case of business failure.
Truth: Mallya’s legal problems are much more than a failed airline. He has been accused of criminal allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Indian Penal Code and other financial rules. In 2022, the Supreme Court sentenced him to four months imprisonment in an contempt case. In addition, a non-bailable warrant was issued in the case of a service tax evasion, where ₹ 100 crore collected from customers was not deposited with the government. A UK court has also approved his extradition, although it has been delayed due to pending refuge appeals. This is not a citizen lapse but a complex legal case related to fraud, theft and deliberate deception.
Claim 5: ‘My company’s assets were less evaluated.’
Truth: Mallya claims that his assets were sold at less than his actual value during recovery. However, there is no reliable evidence that indicates that banks evaluated their properties less. In fact, while applying for the loan, Mallya exaggerated the estimates, in which the value of Kingfisher Airlines was estimated at $ 500 million, which was much higher than its actual value given the company’s poor financial performance.
When the banks tried to recover the dues, they auctioned attached properties such as Kingfisher Villa and UB shares. These courts were sold under monitoring public processes, following the appropriate legal procedures, including open bids. The low selling price was probably the result of legal complications, brand price reduction and crisis -stricken sales conditions, not low evaluation by banks.
There is no independent assessment or legal findings that systematically supports Mallya’s claim of low evaluation. Instead, exaggerated numbers and failure to repay their repayment gave limited options for property recovery.
Claim 6: ‘I never misused the company’s fund.’
Truth: ED discovered ₹ 241 crore transferred to Force India F1 team from Kingfisher Airlines’ accounts. In addition, Mallya used ₹ 100 crore to run an individual aircraft – expenses incurred by a debt -ridden airline. He also spent ₹ 330 crore on foreign property acquisition, while Kingfisher employees were not getting salary. Based on the transaction records and corporate audit, these conclusions clearly show that the company’s funds were diverted to maintain personal and unrelated business interests.
Claim 7: ‘I have never denied the salaries or dues of the employees.’
Truth: Kingfisher Airlines stopped paying salary by mid -2012. Employees were not deposited with the PF contribution and deducted tax, which was ₹ 371 crore, the officials were not deposited with the authorities. Protests and hunger strikes were carried out across the country. Meanwhile, Mallya was a high-profile lifestyle, participated in IPL matches, held parties on his boat, and owned luxury properties abroad, while his employees were struggling to survive. This denies his statement about their claims of financial helplessness and employee compensation.
Claim 8: ‘I was advised by Pranab Mukherjee not to stop Kingfisher during the 2008 crisis’.
Truth: Mallya has cited an oral exchange with the then Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, which he cited the reason for continuing operations during the financially turbulent period. However, this story has never been certified through an official record, and Mukherjee is no longer alive to confirm or refute this conversation. Even if such advice is informally given, it will not free a promoter from the responsibility of making proper financial evaluation or maintaining trusti duties.
Claim 9: ‘I used my own money to repay the loan.’
Truth: Mallya suggests that he personally repaid banks, but there is no record of any voluntary payment made by him after leaving India in 2016. The ₹ 10,815 crore has been recovered so far from the sale of properties seized under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act – including Kingfisher Villa, United Bruriies shares and other properties. These were auctioned by banks and enforcement agencies under court surveillance.
These collectors were not the result of any direct financial contribution of Mallya, but the result of the liquidation of property authorized by the Indian courts. According to the definition, it is not qualified as individual repayment. Mallya did not have a cooperative role in these colleges; It was forced by law.
Claim 10: ‘Indian media is biased and wants to trap me.’
Truth: Allegations against Mallya are supported by Indian agencies (ED, CBI, SFIO), International Cooperation (UK court verdict), and the Supreme Court orders are supported by comprehensive investigation findings. The ‘fugitive economic criminal’ was formalized under a law passed in the label 2018 – largely due to high -profile cases like him. Media coverage may shape the perception, but their legal problems are contained in well -recorded legal violations.
What is the conclusion of this?
Mallya’s podcast has received crores of views, but popularity on public sympathy and social media cannot eradicate financial, legal and criminal realities associated with his case. Their major claims, ranging from repayment data to low assessment of property, employees outstanding and misuse of funds, are fragmented by court monitoring recovery, enforcement findings and bank records. He remains a declared fugitive economic criminal with a dues of about ₹ 7,000 crore. The investigation against him has confirmed the manipulation of funds, deliberate omissions and procedural violations.
