This Article is From Mar 11, 2016

Order To Appear Next Week Will Test Vijay Mallya Claim Of Not Fleeing

Order To Appear Next Week Will Test Vijay Mallya Claim Of Not Fleeing

In a tweet this morning, Vijay Mallya rejected that he has fled India.

Highlights

  • Vijay Mallya to appear for questioning on March 18, say officials
  • Money-laundering case against Mallya for 900-crore loan
  • Haven't fled India, Mallya tweeted this morning, reportedly from UK
New Delhi: Vijay Mallya, who left the country earlier this month, has been ordered to appear for questioning in Mumbai on March 18 in a case of money-laundering.

In a tweet this morning, Mr Mallya, who built his fortune partly with Kingfisher beer and then ran into financial disaster with Kingfisher Airlines, rejected that he has fled India as banks move to collect nearly a billion dollars owed by the airline.
 
Mr Mallya, who is also a member of the Rajya Sabha, left India on March 2, reportedly for England, though his spokespersons have not confirmed his whereabouts. His office, when contacted by NDTV, did not confirm whether he will obey the summons for next week.  

The Enforcement Directorate this week filed a case of money-laundering, alleging that Mr Mallya illicitly used a 900-crore loan from the state-run IDBI to service other debts and sent large sums abroad.

The government has been accused of "criminal conspiracy" by the opposition Congress for allowing Mr Mallya's exit. But the government has said that when Mr Mallya flew abroad, there was no legal restriction on his travel.

Last year, the CBI, which is investigating how and why state-run banks bestowed heavy loans on the entrepreneur without adequate protection, had ordered a lookout notice to airports to stop Mr Mallya, 60, from traveling abroad.  But a month later, the agency loosened the check, asking only to be informed if the parliamentarian was boarding an international flight.

CBI sources have also said that Mr Mallya's passport could not be suspended or impounded because the cases against him had not progressed to a point where he could legally be restrained from traveling.
.