State Bank of India & Ors v Mallya & Ors [2019] EWHC 995 (QB) (17 April 2019)

State Bank of India & Ors v Mallya & Ors [2019] EWHC 995 (QB) (17 April 2019)

The failure to disclose the bankruptcy proceedings and other matters was not material to the making of the ITPDO, and the grounds for making the order were strong. The existence of bankruptcy proceedings is relevant to the exercise of discretion but not fatal to the application. The ITPDO should remain in force, but the application for a final order should be adjourned until after the bankruptcy petition is heard.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 995
Parties
Claimant: State Bank of India & Others; First Defendant: Dr Vijay Mallya; Second Defendant: Ladywalk LLP; Third Defendant: Rose Capital Ventures Limited; Fourth Defendant: Orange India Holdings S. A. R. L.; Third Party: ICICI Bank UK PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Third Party Debt Order Application / Hearing of Application to Make Interim Third Party Debt Order Final
Outcome
Application for final third-party debt order adjourned; interim order to remain in force
Legal Topics
Third Party Debt Orders, Bankruptcy Proceedings, Disclosure Obligations, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Civil Procedure Insolvency Banking Law Third Party Debt Orders Bankruptcy Proceedings Disclosure Obligations Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State Bank of India & Others

Claimant

Dr Vijay Mallya

First Defendant

Ladywalk LLP

Second Defendant

Rose Capital Ventures Limited

Third Defendant

Orange India Holdings S. A. R. L.

Fourth Defendant

ICICI Bank UK PLC

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Third Party Debt Order Application / Hearing of Application to Make Interim Third Party Debt Order Final

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to disclose bankruptcy proceedings and other matters warranted setting aside the interim third-party debt order (ITPDO)
  2. 2 Whether the ITPDO should be made final in light of ongoing bankruptcy proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to disclose the bankruptcy proceedings and other matters was not material to the making of the ITPDO, and the grounds for making the order were strong. The existence of bankruptcy proceedings is relevant to the exercise of discretion but not fatal to the application. The ITPDO should remain in force, but the application for a final order should be adjourned until after the bankruptcy petition is heard.

Court Disposition

Application for final third-party debt order adjourned; interim order to remain in force

Orders

  • Interim third-party debt order to remain in force
  • Application for final order adjourned until after hearing of bankruptcy petition