)
In what could be more trouble to Vijay Mallya’s beleaguered United Breweries Holdings Limited (UBHL), the Karnataka High Court on Friday admitted six winding-up petitions filed by the creditors of Kingfisher Airlines against the company.
The high court bench headed by Justice A S Bopanna admitted the winding up petitions filed by RRPF Engine Leasing Ltd, Rolls Royce Plc, IAE International Aero Engines, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and a consortium of banks headed by State Bank of India (SBI) and United Bank of India separately. These banks have sought enforcement of corporate guarantee given by them to the company.
The admission of these petitions has come barely a week after the Calcutta High Court’s dismissal, on technical grounds, of UBI’s decision to declare Mallya and the Kingfisher Airlines wilful defaulters.
The SBI-led consortium is seeking settlement of its outstanding debt to the tune of Rs 5,823.75 crore, while the UBI is seeking repayment of Rs 450 crore in a separate petition.
“In the case of the petitioner banks, it is contended that the corporate guarantee obtained is a result of coercion. As such, a suit (L) No. 263/2013 is filed in the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration that the corporate guarantee dated December 21, 2010 and the pledge agreement dated December 21, 2010 are void ab initio and non-est,” the judge said.
The fact that the suits are pending cannot be in dispute. The nature of the contentions raised in the respective suit on its merit need not be adverted to by this court, he observed.
The RRPF Engine Leasing Ltd, which had entered into a master engine leasing agreement with Kingfisher Airlines, is seeking its dues amounting to $10.43 million (Rs 57.94 crore). The Rolls Royce Plc is seeking its dues amounting to $30.68 million (Rs 153 crore).
The oil marketing company, HPCL has filed a petition seeking repayment of its outstanding dues amounting to Rs 66.72 crore towards the supply of fuel.
While admitting the petitions, Justice Bopanna said: “None of the decisions cited by the respondent would come to its aid so as to qualify the defence as a substantial or bana fide one at this stage. The defence raised not only appears as a moonshine, but is a mirage, rather it is a tailored defence as it appears from the circumstance.”
The court has ordered for advertising the date of hearing in the local newspapers during the first week of February. It also ordered for posting the matter for hearing on February 26, 2015.
