In throes of debt, Vijay Mallya to face charge in cheque bounce case

The High Court has refused to interfere with a lower court order which is about to frame charges against Kingfisher Airlines, Vijay Mallya and others for dishonouring of cheques issued to Kempegowda International Airport (KIA). The Kingfisher Airlines approached the HC against the lower court who allowed the case by KIA. However, the advocate for the now defunct airlines, its Managing Director Vijay Mallya and others failed to appear before the HC.

The advocate for KIA informed the HC that after the lower court order on November 6, 2015, many more adjournments were given and after the consent of advocates of both parties, the case is now posted for framing of charges on June 20, 2019. The HC based on the lower court order said, "I have also gone through the order of the trial court. The trial court after observing the power conferred under Section 142(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act has come to the right conclusion and there are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial court."

The private complaint was filed by KIA in 2012. It was alleged that the airlines owed it a debt of Rs 58,40,02,893.64. The airlines had issued cheques to the Airport for this debt which came to be dishonoured for the reason "payment stopped by the drawer."


The airport had a tough time with Kingfisher Airlines. "Initially, complainant was under the bona fide impression and belief that accused will make payment of dishonoured cheques as and when the company got sufficient funds, but deliberately evaded the payment of dishonoured cheques by taking undue advantage of the complainant company," the lower court noted in its 2015 order.

Even in the lower court, Kingfisher Airlines managed to delay the case from 2012 to 2015. This was also noted by the court which had said, "The respondents/accused though made proposal about part payment in response to the reply to the letter of the complainant company, but they have neither complied nor filed objections within the stipulated period and thereby abused the process of law from the year 2012 to 2015, accordingly application filed by the complainant company is deserves to be allowed without cost."