State Bank of India & Ors v Mallya [2020] EWHC 96 (Ch) (09 April 2020)

State Bank of India & Ors v Mallya [2020] EWHC 96 (Ch) (09 April 2020)

The petitioners are secured creditors at least in part, failed to comply with section 269 Insolvency Act 1986 by not disclosing security, and the breach is capable of cure by amendment. Given the genuine prospect of settlement proceedings in India, the bankruptcy petition should be adjourned rather than dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 96 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: State Bank of India; Petitioner: Bank of Baroda; Petitioner: Corporation Bank; Petitioner: The Federal Bank Limited; Petitioner: IDBI Bank Limited; Petitioner: Indian Overseas Bank; Petitioner: Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited; Petitioner: Punjab & Sind Bank; Petitioner: Punjab National Bank; Petitioner: State Bank of Mysore; Petitioner: UCO Bank; Petitioner: United Bank of India; Petitioner: JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd; Respondent: Dr Vijay Mallya
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition / First Hearing; Judgment on Adjournment
Outcome
petition adjourned
Legal Topics
Secured Creditor Status, Foreign Judgment Enforcement, Bankruptcy Petition Requirements, Adjournment Discretion, Settlement Proposals
Insolvency Bankruptcy Conflict of Laws Secured Creditor Status Foreign Judgment Enforcement Bankruptcy Petition Requirements Adjournment Discretion Settlement Proposals

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State Bank of India

Petitioner

Bank of Baroda

Petitioner

Corporation Bank

Petitioner

The Federal Bank Limited

Petitioner

IDBI Bank Limited

Petitioner

Indian Overseas Bank

Petitioner

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited

Petitioner

Punjab & Sind Bank

Petitioner

Punjab National Bank

Petitioner

State Bank of Mysore

Petitioner

UCO Bank

Petitioner

United Bank of India

Petitioner

JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd

Petitioner

Dr Vijay Mallya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition / First Hearing; Judgment on Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioners are secured creditors for the purpose of section 269 Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the bankruptcy petition should be dismissed or adjourned due to failure to disclose security
  3. 3 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of settlement within a reasonable period

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners are secured creditors at least in part, failed to comply with section 269 Insolvency Act 1986 by not disclosing security, and the breach is capable of cure by amendment. Given the genuine prospect of settlement proceedings in India, the bankruptcy petition should be adjourned rather than dismissed.

Court Disposition

petition adjourned

Orders

  • Hearing of the bankruptcy petition adjourned for amendment and for time to pay debts in full.
  • Decision hearing adjourned to a date to be fixed.