He (Mallya) is faced with a scenario where there is are dues of Rs 6,200 crore public money on him.
received in pursuance to the non-competing agreement with Diageo Plc.
To this, the bench said, "As per the order of high court, the moment any property belonged to you, there was an injunction on it. He (Mallya) is faced with a scenario where there is are dues of Rs 6,200 crore public money on him. All properties belonging to you are under the injunction order".
"Why there was so hurry to dispose of that money (USD 40 million)? It comes to your pocket and is transferred very soon, within a day," the bench asked.
Mallya's counsel said the money which came from Diageo belonged to his children and not him.
The bench shot back: "Somebody who is faced with a default of Rs 6,200 crore and suppose if he gets Rs 3,000 crore, he should have given it to repay the dues".
Vaidyanathan maintained that the USD 40 million was not covered under the injunction order.
"Today, will the highest court of this land decide on the alleged contempt of the Karnataka High Court order without being any application for contempt? No specific contempt plea has been filed. My right to appeal against the high court's order can't be taken away like this.
"This man (Mallya) has been made a poster boy of default.
Even the worst criminal, like a terrorist, is entitled to avail his rights given under the Constitution," he said, adding, "this case can't be treated as a unique case".
"Why this man is being targeted in this manner when his business has suffered a loss. It is not his fault that his business failed.... Why this special treatment? Why my right to appeal is being taken away," he said.
In October last year, the court had rapped Mallya for not making full disclosure of his overseas properties and had asked him to do so within a month.
The bench had also pulled up Mallya for not giving details of USD 40 million which he had allegedly received from British firm Diageo in February last year, saying it was of the "prima facie view" that proper disclosure as per its earlier order was not made.
The banks had on August 29 last year told the Supreme Court that Mallya had deliberately not made full disclosure of his assets including the USD 40 million he received on February 25 from Diageo.
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}