The Bombay High Court has indicated that a nearly decade-long commercial dispute between businessman Vijay Mallya and a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) should finally be brought to a close. The court has asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to clarify the present status of Mallya’s attached assets and whether the recovery and settlement process has effectively been completed.

The development came during the hearing of a 2020 petition filed by Mallya challenging an order that had allowed the SBI-led consortium to use assets attached by the ED to recover outstanding dues linked to the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines. Mallya’s counsel told the court that circumstances had changed substantially since the petition was filed and that the original plea had effectively lost its relevance.

Justice Milind Jadhav, hearing the matter, appeared inclined to bring the commercial litigation to an end. The court observed that such disputes cannot remain unresolved indefinitely and stressed the wider economic implications of keeping a commercial conflict alive for years.

Why Vijay Mallya’s 2020 plea is back in focus

Mallya’s petition dates back to 2020, when the legal battle over his assets was still unfolding and discussions over a possible settlement were underway.

The petition challenged an order of a special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which had permitted the SBI-led consortium of lenders to utilise assets attached or confiscated by the ED for recovering outstanding loans. At the time, Mallya sought protection for certain assets covered by the proceedings.

Six years later, however, his legal team argued that the circumstances that gave rise to the petition had fundamentally changed.

Senior advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Mallya, told the Bombay High Court that most of the assets referred to in the original proceedings had already been attached and dealt with. In effect, the dispute that the 2020 petition was designed to address had moved considerably beyond its original contours.

The court therefore faces a relatively unusual situation: rather than determining a dispute entirely on the basis of the circumstances prevailing when the petition was filed, it must consider whether there is still a live issue left for adjudication.

Bombay HC asks ED whether ‘everything is done and dusted’

The court has not yet formally closed the proceedings.

Instead, it has sought a clearer picture from the Enforcement Directorate. The ED has been asked to file an affidavit setting out the current status of the investigation, attached assets and recovery process.

The court specifically wants to know whether the settlement and recovery process has effectively concluded — in the words reported from the hearing, whether “everything is done and dusted”.

The ED’s response is expected to help the High Court determine what, if anything, remains to be decided in Mallya’s 2020 petition. The matter is expected to be considered further after the concerned ED deputy director addresses the court. The bench has listed the matter for a further hearing after four weeks.

This distinction is important. The Bombay High Court has not declared that all proceedings against Mallya are over. Its immediate concern is the commercial and asset-recovery dispute between Mallya and the banks.

The court has expressly indicated that bringing the civil or commercial dispute to an end would not affect the separate criminal proceedings against him. Those proceedings, it said, must continue to their logical conclusion.

‘The idea is to move on’: What the Bombay HC said

The most striking part of the hearing was Justice Jadhav’s observation that the dispute should not continue indefinitely.

The judge said the issue needed to be put to an end and that the parties should “move on”. The court also expressed concern that prolonged commercial disputes could have broader consequences for economic relations and the country’s economy.

The observation reflects a practical judicial concern: once the underlying commercial issue has substantially evolved or been resolved through recoveries, continuing litigation over an old set of circumstances may serve little purpose.

The court also noted, as reported by Live Law, that commercial disputes can often provide the basis for their own resolution. After almost a decade of litigation, the emphasis appeared to be on determining whether anything meaningful remains to be contested rather than extending the dispute simply because the original petition is still formally pending.

Mallya’s lawyer claims banks recovered ₹15,000 crore

During the hearing, Desai made a broader argument about the amount already recovered by public sector banks.

According to his submissions, the banks have recovered approximately ₹15,000 crore from Mallya, compared with claimed dues of ₹6,203.35 crore, excluding interest. He argued that continuing to keep the civil dispute pending was therefore unjustified.

Desai also referred to an RBI audit and characterised the Kingfisher Airlines episode as a business failure rather than something that should continue to generate unresolved civil liabilities.

However, these figures and characterisations were presented by Mallya’s counsel during the hearing. They do not, by themselves, amount to a judicial finding that all liabilities or proceedings against Mallya have been conclusively extinguished.

That distinction matters because the Bombay High Court is still awaiting the ED’s account of the assets, recoveries and status of the proceedings before deciding what happens to the 2020 petition.

How the Vijay Mallya asset dispute began

The current proceedings are part of a much larger legal saga surrounding Kingfisher Airlines, bank loans and efforts by Indian authorities to recover money from Mallya.

The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case in 2015 concerning alleged irregularities in loans obtained by Kingfisher Airlines. The proceedings subsequently expanded into multiple legal actions involving allegations related to loan defaults, fraud, money laundering and financial irregularities.

Mallya left India in March 2016 as legal pressure intensified and has remained in the United Kingdom. India has sought his extradition to face criminal proceedings.

In January 2019, Mallya was declared a fugitive economic offender. The legal framework governing fugitive economic offenders enables authorities, subject to the statutory process, to take action against the assets of individuals accused of leaving India to evade prosecution.

The asset-recovery proceedings subsequently became a significant part of the effort by banks and investigative agencies to recover money associated with the Kingfisher Airlines loans.

Why the ED’s response matters

The ED’s affidavit could now become the key piece of information determining the future of Mallya’s 2020 petition.

The agency is expected to explain what assets remain attached, what has already been recovered or disposed of, and whether there are outstanding issues connected to the recovery process.

That information will allow the High Court to establish whether the petition still presents a substantive dispute requiring judicial determination.

If the court concludes that the underlying asset-recovery issue has effectively been resolved, the 2020 petition could move towards closure. If unresolved issues remain, however, the proceedings could continue in some form.

Either way, Wednesday’s hearing suggests that the court is reluctant to allow an old commercial dispute to remain pending without a clear purpose.

Commercial dispute closure does not mean Mallya’s legal troubles are over

The distinction between Mallya’s financial recovery dispute and his criminal cases is central to understanding the latest development.

A possible closure of the commercial litigation over assets would not amount to a clean legal slate for Mallya. The Bombay High Court has made clear that criminal proceedings remain separate and must continue.

Mallya’s extradition situation also remains a distinct issue. UK courts have approved his extradition to India, but his return has been delayed by further legal proceedings in Britain. Earlier this year, the Bombay High Court also dealt with his challenges relating to his designation as a fugitive economic offender and indicated that his physical return to India was relevant to pursuing certain reliefs.

Thus, the latest Bombay High Court hearing should be viewed narrowly: it concerns the continuing relevance of a 2020 petition connected to the recovery and utilisation of Mallya’s attached assets.

It does not erase the separate criminal allegations or determine the outcome of the extradition process.

What happens next

For now, the next significant step is the ED’s response.

The agency’s affidavit will have to clarify the status of the assets and the recovery process, after which the Bombay High Court will determine the appropriate course of action.

The hearing nevertheless marks a notable shift in the tone of the long-running Mallya-SBI dispute. What began as a contested question over whether the banks could utilise ED-attached assets has, after years of recovery proceedings and subsequent developments, reached a point where the court is questioning whether the original dispute has anything substantial left to resolve.

For the banks, the focus has long been on recovering public money. For Mallya, the latest hearing represents an opportunity to argue that his civil liabilities have effectively been dealt with. For the court, the immediate task is simpler but consequential: establish the factual position and determine whether the six-year-old petition still serves a purpose.

The answer will depend largely on what the ED reports.

Until then, the Bombay High Court’s message is clear. After years of litigation, if the commercial dispute has in substance already run its course, the parties should not remain trapped in a legal battle that no longer reflects the reality on the ground.

But while the commercial chapter may be approaching its final pages, Mallya’s wider legal story is far from over.

With input from agencies

Image Source: Multiple agencies

© Copyright 2026. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Vygr Media.