“The government of India, Ministry of Finance, has published a report, their annual report, in which they have acknowledged ₹14,100 crore recovered from me. The Union Finance Ministry has confirmed in writing that banks have recovered ₹14,100 crore from me against a DRT (debt recovery tribunal) judgment debt of ₹6,203 crore. Why the blatant discrimination?” Mallya claimed in a recent podcast interview.
“Call me a fugitive for not going to India post-March 2016. I didn’t run away; I flew out of India on a pre-scheduled visit… fair enough, I did not return for reasons that I consider are valid… but where is the ‘chor’ coming from… where is the ‘chori’?” he said.
Behind the scenes, banks maintain that this sum accounts for accrued interest, penal liabilities, legal costs, and asset sales. In their view, it paints a very different picture, far from simple over-collection. They caution against confusing monetary recovery with overpayment.
Also Read: Meet the Bollywood couple who owns Vijay Mallya’s Kingfisher Villa in Goa
Sure, the Ministry of Finance did state in its annual report for FY25 that a sum total of ₹14,131.6 crores was the amount of attached properties that had been successfully restored to public sector banks in the Vijay Mallya case. An excerpt from that report is provided below for reference.
Leading Mallya to claim, “It was always my intention to settle. Never did I say I didn’t want to pay. The problem was that the banks were not willing to negotiate in good faith. They were driven by a political agenda rather than commercial sense. I repeatedly tried to engage with the banks to find a workable solution, but the narrative was already set against me. The moment I was branded a defaulter and a fraudster, any attempt at dialogue was dismissed.”
The Numbers Game
The Kingfisher Airlines account became a non-performing asset, or a defaulter, at the end of December 2011. In June 2013, a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) case was filed against Kingfisher Airlines and its promoter, Vijay Mallya, for the recovery of dues related to loans taken from a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI). The DRT, at the time, adjudged the total dues to be ₹6,203.35 crore, along with 11.5% interest from the date of the application.
The Debt Recovery Tribunal adjudged the KFA debt at Rs 6203 crores including Rs 1200 crores of interest. The FM announced in Parliament that through the ED,Banks have recovered Rs 14,131.60 crores from me against the judgement debt of Rs 6203 crores and I am still an economic…
— Vijay Mallya (@TheVijayMallya) December 18, 2024
However, since then, interest has continued to accrue on this amount, and as per banking executives who did not wish to be quoted, the total outstanding dues are now at nearly ₹17,800 crore, including the principal outstanding, interest and other penal charges.
Also Read: Vijay Mallya claims Pranab Mukherjee dismissed Kingfisher cutback plan: ‘I was told to carry on’
While ₹14,131.6 crore was the value attached to properties that had been restored to public sector banks by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), banking executives in the know explained that the realised value from the sale of these assets was not equal to the ₹14,131.6 crore, but was, in fact, lower.
Via various asset sales, including Kingfisher House in Goa for ₹72 crore in 2017, the erstwhile headquarters of the defunct airline- the Kingfisher House in Mumbai for ₹52.25 crore in 2021, and sale of shares held by Mallya in United Breweries among others, banks have been able to recover approximately ₹10,800 crore in this account, said banking executives on the condition of anonymity. That still leaves over ₹6,900 crore that is still owed to banks, and counting. So Mallya’s claim of having overpaid banks is disputed by lenders to the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.
“I have paid back a significant portion of the loans, and as the government’s own report shows, ₹14,100 crore has been recovered from me. So, the question is not about willingness to pay, but about the process and fairness of recovery. I was never against repaying the dues. What I opposed was the unfair treatment, the media trial, and the political witch-hunt that prevented any reasonable settlement,” Vijay Mallya said in his recent interview.
He also recalls four attempts between 2012 and 2015 to strike deals with banks. These offers, he says, were summarily rejected.
“Between 2012 and 2015, I made four different settlement offers to the banks. These offers were structured in a way that the banks would recover a significant portion of their money, and it was a win-win situation. However, unfortunately, the banks refused to accept any of these offers…I believe the banks were under pressure from regulatory authorities and the government to take a hard stance.
They were more interested in making an example out of Kingfisher Airlines rather than working out a practical solution. Also, the political environment was not conducive to negotiations….The banks had already started classifying the loans as non-performing assets, and the atmosphere became very adversarial. It was no longer about business solutions but about blame and legal battles.”
Also Read: Vijay Mallya’s bankruptcy order appeals return to London High Court
“I gave my personal guarantee, and UB Group also did. Please never forget, I gave my personal guarantee… Koyi chor kabhi apna personal guarantee deta hai kya?” he added.
In February this year, Vijay Mallya filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court seeking directions to banks to provide an account statement of the amounts recovered from him in the Kingfisher Airlines loan default case. He claimed that banks had recovered the principal debt multiple times over and sought an interim stay on further recovery actions. The court issued notices to 10 banks, including SBI and Punjab National Bank.
The UK courts, meanwhile, have not sided with Mallya. In April 2025, the UK High Court upheld a bankruptcy order against Vijay Mallya related to his debt owed to the SBI-led consortium of banks. Mallya had appealed the bankruptcy ruling, arguing that the banks had already recovered assets that effectively settled the debt. However, the appeal was dismissed by the UK High Court.