A consortium of State Bank of India (SBI)-led lenders has informed the Bombay High Court that a substantial sum of approximately ₹8,752 crore remains recoverable from fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya. This disclosure directly contradicts Mallya's assertion that all his dues to the banks have been fully settled.
Mallya, the founder of the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines and former Chairman of United Breweries Group, is currently petitioning the court to dismiss criminal proceedings against him. He had approached the Bombay High Court in 2020, arguing that his financial dispute with the lenders was resolved following various asset recoveries.
Banks Clarify Remaining Dues
In an affidavit filed at the High Court's direction, the banks clarified the specifics of their recoveries. While a debt recovery officer had "temporarily recovered" ₹10,270 crore, backed by a bond undertaking, and an additional ₹544.58 crore was recovered before a suit was filed in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, these amounts do not represent a full settlement.
According to the Economic Times report, the outstanding amount stood at ₹8,135.63 crore as of January 2026. After factoring in subsequent accruals, including legal and other expenses, the total recoverable amount climbed to ₹8,751.86 crore by August 31.
Criminal Liability vs. Civil Recovery
The lenders' consortium is actively opposing Mallya’s plea to quash his money laundering case, arguing that his challenge to a December 31, 2019 order is misguided. They also highlighted that certain attached shares in the case are still intact and have not been sold, indicating ongoing assets for recovery.
The legal battle against Mallya is proceeding on two distinct fronts: civil recovery efforts by the banks for outstanding dues, and criminal prosecution by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for alleged bank fraud, criminal conspiracy, and money laundering.
The ED has noted that assets worth approximately ₹14,132 crore have been restored to SBI. However, the agency maintains before the high court that civil recoveries do not absolve criminal liability under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Mallya, who was declared a fugitive economic offender in 2019, contends that recoveries exceeding the original decreed debt should lead to the closure of all proceedings.
“The restoration of assets under Section 8(8) of the PMLA is a statutory mechanism for restitution to a claimant having a legitimate interest in the property and does not, by itself, determine the existence of the scheduled offence or the offence of money laundering,” the ED stated in its reply. “The subsequent restoration/ recovery of assets, therefore, cannot be construed as extinguishing or rendering infructuous the pending proceedings under the PMLA.”
The Bombay High Court is scheduled to hear the matter again on October 13.