Facts of the case:
1. The respondent No. 13 - Kingfisher Airlines had availed Working Capital and Term Loan Facilities from the Consortium of banks in the year 2005. The said loans were later restructured. In relation to aforesaid loans, the respondent No. 14- United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. provided a Corporate Guarantee and the petitioner-Vijay Mallya furnished his personal guarantee.
2. The borrower ‘Kingfisher’ committed default in repayment of the loans, due to which the Loan Account was classified as NPA. The respondent No. 1- State Bank of India issued a Loan Recall Notice dated 2-4-2013 to the Kingfisher Airlines and to the Guarantors. The Personal Guarantee furnished by the petitioner was also invoked by calling upon him to make payment of a sum of Rs. 6,493.29 crore. By way of the reply dated 17- 4-2013, the petitioner denied his liability by alleging that the Contract of Guarantee was vitiated by coercion/undue influence.
3. The respondent No. 1- State Bank of India instituted Original Application under section 19 in the DRT for recovery of the dues of Rs. 6,203 crores as on 31-5-2013 with interest at the rate of 15.20% p.a with monthly rests. This Original Application was opposed by the Borrower and Guarantors by filing the Written Statements.
4. The DRT vide order dated 19-1-2017 holding the respondents - Kingfisher Airlines, United Breweries Ltd., Kingfisher Finvest (India) Ltd., and the petitioner Vijay Mallya, jointly and severally liable for the recovery of sum of Rs. 6,203 crores with interest at the rate of 11.50% with yearly rests.
5. The petitioner - Vijay Mallya, aggrieved by the order of the DRT, preferred an appeal before the DRAT on 4-10-2017. After scrutiny, the registry of DRAT notified certain objections in the appeal memo filed by the petitioner. The appeal came to be dismissed by the order dated 2- 1-2018 as the objections were not complied with.
6. On 5-3-2018, the petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner claims that thereafter i.e., on 21-3- 2018, he had complied with the office objections raised in the main appeal.
7. Later, the DRAT, by its order dated 28-3-2018, directed him to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,101 crore, on or before 25-4-2018 as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal and subject to the rider that the appeal would stand dismissed automatically without reference to the Bench.
8. The petitioner did not make any deposit thereafter and the appeal stood dismissed. Later, the petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of the dismissed appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. The DRAT, by its order dated 25-4-2018, dismissed both these applications.
9. The petitioner preferred the instant writ petitions challenging the order dated 28-3-2018 and also challenged the order dated 25-4- 2018 contending that a considerable amount is already lying in deposit in the Registry of this Court in various proceedings arising out of the very same loan transaction.
Judgement: The High Court Of Karnataka has discredited petitioner's version that he did not have any money to deposit and hence, his writ petitions to quash DRAT's order for pre-deposit and to extend time were also dismissed.
https://www.taxmann.com/filecontent.aspx ?Page=CASELAWS&multipage=false&id=101010000000184382&isxml=Y&search=&tophe ad=true&tophead=true