State Bank of India & Ors v Mallya & Ors

State Bank of India & Ors v Mallya & Ors

The failure to disclose the existence of bankruptcy proceedings was not material to the grant of the ITPDO, and the grounds for making the order were strong. The existence of bankruptcy proceedings is relevant to the court's discretion but does not preclude enforcement. The ITPDO should remain in force, and the application for a final order is adjourned until after the bankruptcy petition hearing.

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
Commercial Enforcement / Application for Third Party Debt Order (tpdo) – Further Consideration After Interim Order
Outcome
Application for final TPDO adjourned; ITPDO to remain in force until after bankruptcy petition hearing.
Legal Topics
Third Party Debt Orders, Bankruptcy Proceedings, Disclosure Obligations, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Insolvency Enforcement of Judgments Third Party Debt Orders Bankruptcy Proceedings Disclosure Obligations Freezing Orders

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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

Commercial Enforcement / Application for Third Party Debt Order (tpdo) – Further Consideration After Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim third-party debt order (ITPDO) should be set aside for non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the ITPDO should be made final in light of ongoing bankruptcy proceedings
  3. 3 Scope of duty of disclosure in TPDO applications

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to disclose the existence of bankruptcy proceedings was not material to the grant of the ITPDO, and the grounds for making the order were strong. The existence of bankruptcy proceedings is relevant to the court's discretion but does not preclude enforcement. The ITPDO should remain in force, and the application for a final order is adjourned until after the bankruptcy petition hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for final TPDO adjourned; ITPDO to remain in force until after bankruptcy petition hearing.

Orders

  • ITPDO to remain in force.
  • Application for final TPDO adjourned until after the hearing of the bankruptcy petition.