What Vijay Mallya Claimed in His Podcast—and What the Records Really Show

 “I did not borrow one rupee from anybody,” claimed the former promoter of United Breweries and founder of Kingfisher Airlines in a four-hour-long podcast with Indian YouTuber Raj Shamani earlier this month. Much of the interaction centred on his defence in a ₹6,203.35 crore debt case, where he claimed that Indian authorities had already recovered over ₹14,000 crore—more than twice the amount he owed.

The head of the bankrupt airline, which collapsed in 2012 amid heavy debt, claimed he did not escape from India but went out for an event after notifying the then Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. However, later, the Indian government revoked his passport.

From denying allegations of money laundering to blaming banks for not paying salaries of Kingfisher’s employees, Mallya spoke on several issues. However, do his claims actually have any factual basis? Outlook Business decodes using publicly available documents, court orders in cases related to him and what legal experts say.

The making of Vijay Mallya – And The Collapse That Followed

A businessman and former Member of Parliament known for his flamboyant—a label he objected to during the podcast—lifestyle, Vijay Vittal Mallya became chairman of United Breweries Group in 1983 at the age of 28, after the death of his father, Vittal Mallya. The company, under his leadership, became one of India's most popular alcoholic beverage brands. In 2005, he ventured into the civil aviation sector with Kingfisher Airlines.

The airline—he acknowledged in the podcast—was launched as a low-cost model but later started offering premium services. By 2009, Kingfisher Airlines had become the nation's largest passenger carrier with a market share of 22.9% and 11mn passengers. But while it was the largest carrier in the nation at the time, it was still making a loss. On November 4, 2009, Kingfisher reported a net loss of ₹418.77 crore during the second quarter of the fiscal. Its income from operations also declined by 13.6% during the quarter compared to the same period of the previous year.

As losses widened, the company’s debt also grew. One of the key reasons: Kingfisher's 2007 acquisition of Air Deccan, India's first low-fare carrier, promoted by GR Gopinath, for ₹550 crore.

By 2010, Kingfisher Airlines had accumulated a huge debt of about ₹6,000 crore. Moreover, the airline continued to report losses and its net worth was negative in 2008–09, just four years after it started operations. In 2010, Kingfisher Airlines was declared a non-performing asset by banks because of the company’s inability to pay dues totalling over ₹6,000 crore. In November 2010, banks restructured Kingfisher's debt for the first time.

The consortium of lenders, led by State Bank of India (SBI), converted ₹1,355 crore of debt into equity at a 61.6% premium to the market price of Kingfisher Airlines stock, which at the time was trading around ₹65. In addition, the bankers stretched the loan repayment period to nine years with a two-year moratorium, cut interest rates and sanctioned a fresh loan.

In 2011, the airline, for the very first time, declared cash flow issues. The blame, however, was laid on rising fuel costs. That year, Kingfisher was unable to pay fuel bills to oil companies and salaries to employees. As a result, pilots left Kingfisher for rival airlines.

The year 2012 was the most turbulent for Kingfisher Airlines. At the beginning of the year, SBI—the largest creditor of cash-strapped Kingfisher Airlines—declared the airline a non-performing asset. It was followed by other state-owned lenders like IDBI Bank, Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda and others. After incurring huge losses and failing to pay employees, Kingfisher Airlines was grounded in October 2012 and its licence was cancelled in December 2012.

In 2013, Vijay Mallya was labelled a wilful defaulter by SBI-led banks. That same year, Diageo began acquiring a controlling stake in United Spirits (USL) and although Mallya initially remained chairman, a 2015 internal probe uncovered financial irregularities under his leadership. That same year, the CBI and ED began investigating alleged loan fraud, including a ₹900 crore IDBI Bank loan to Kingfisher. In February 2016, Mallya resigned as USL chairman after a $75mn settlement with Diageo. Meanwhile, he also lost control of United Breweries (UBL) as lenders sold his pledged shares and Heineken became the largest stakeholder.

In 2016, Mallya left India and moved to the United Kingdom as Indian authorities launched investigations by ED and CBI. India has since pursued his extradition from the UK and a UK court approved the request in 2018. However, legal proceedings have delayed his return.

Mallya has consistently denied wrongdoing and claims he is being politically targeted.

Claims Vijay Mallya Made in Podcast

1. “The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) gave a judgment debt of ₹4,999 crore borrowed by Kingfisher Airlines—not by Vijay Mallya—borrowed by Kingfisher Airlines, of which Vijay Mallya was one of the guarantors. So what is the DRT judgment?
   Debt: ₹4,999 crore plus ₹1.23 crore unapplied interest, which means notional interest that the banks had not even booked, forget that—the total of the unapplied interest and the principal was ₹6,203 crore, and I was a guarantor. The government has recovered ₹14,100 crore from me.”

While making the above claim, the former Kingfisher owner cited two documents:
first, a 2017 order of the DRT and second, the Ministry of Finance's 2024–25 annual report.

The annual report mentions that India's anti-money laundering agency, the ED, has recovered ₹14,131.6 crore from Vijay Mallya. The document adds, “Complete amount of attached properties have been successfully restored to the public sector banks.”

The DRT judgment mentions that the defendants—Kingfisher Airlines, United Breweries (Holdings), Vijay Mallya and Kingfisher Finvest (India)—are jointly and individually responsible for paying ₹6,203.35 crore with interest at 11.5% per year, calculated annually, from June 25, 2013, until the full amount is recovered from them.

Raheel Patel, Partner, Gandhi Law Associates, told Outlook Business, “The debt recovery process from a wilful defaulter in India is layered but ultimately sluggish and patchy. Once declared a wilful defaulter by a lender (as per RBI norms), the borrower faces restrictions on fresh loans and directorships and lenders proceed under the (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act) SARFAESI Act, DRT Act and in high-value cases, initiate proceedings before the (National Company Law Tribunal) NCLT under (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) IBC or pursue attachment under PMLA if there’s a criminal angle.”

Patel added that in Mallya’s case, multiple layers kicked in—banks acted through the DRT and the ED attached assets under PMLA.

While Mallya’s assertion that the DRT ordered them to pay about ₹6,000 crore on April 4, 2017, might be true, he fails to mention what happened next. An August 31, 2020, Supreme Court order offers a timeline of events that followed the DRT ruling.

It mentions that in 2013, Indian banks led by SBI filed a case to recover ₹6,203 crore from Vijay Mallya and Kingfisher Airlines. Mallya had assured the court he wouldn't move assets, and the Karnataka High Court barred him from transferring any property.

However, in 2016, Mallya received $40 mn (about ₹340 crore) in a bank account he didn’t disclose and quickly transferred the money, violating court orders. He also failed to fully reveal his assets. In 2017, the Supreme Court found him guilty of contempt on two counts: first, for hiding asset details and second, for disobeying court orders.

Mallya later filed a review petition in January 2017, claiming he had submitted a reply. The Court admitted it had overlooked the reply but ruled it didn’t change the facts. The review was dismissed and Mallya was ordered to appear in court for sentencing on October 5, 2020.

On July 11, 2022, the Supreme Court bench led by former Chief Justice UU Lalit sentenced Mallya to four months’ imprisonment and imposed a ₹2,000 fine in the 2017 contempt case. The Court also ordered him (and the recipients who received his $40mn) to deposit the full amount plus 8% interest within four weeks—or face attachment of assets and an additional two-month jail term. These orders from all public accounts have not been fulfilled.

His claim that the ED recovered the “complete” amount of ₹14,131.6 crore is also misleading.

A UK High Court order dated April 9, 2020, stated, “The judgment debt (on Vijay Mallya) is £720,740,180.57. Due to interest accruing at a rate of 11.5% with yearly rests, the debt has increased to approximately £1.05 bn (₹11,025 crore). This figure takes account of recoveries already made.” This means Indian authorities had recovered about ₹11,000 crore from Mallya.

Later, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman informed the Lok Sabha on December 17, 2024, that the ED had seized and restored assets worth ₹22,280 crore, including ₹14,131.6 crore recovered specifically from Vijay Mallya’s properties, which were handed over to public sector banks.

Tushar Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, explained, “As regards the quantum of recovery, the law permits the recovery of the principal outstanding along with all accrued contractual interest and penal interest, as well as costs of litigation and enforcement, including fees incurred in foreign jurisdictions where assets are situated.”

“In exceptional cases, such as Mallya’s, where the defaulter is declared a fugitive economic offender, the enforcement agencies are statutorily empowered to attach and dispose of properties wholly unconnected to the original loan transactions, thereby enabling recoveries that may, in aggregate, exceed the original debt,” he added.

This explains why the government may have recovered more than twice the original loan amount, contrary to Mallya’s claim. Since Mallya was declared a fugitive economic offender, enforcement agencies were legally empowered to attach and sell assets not directly linked to the original loan, enabling recoveries to exceed the outstanding dues.

2) “If I’m a thief, how did the banks recover their money?”

This is arguably Mallya’s boldest assertion—and also one of his weakest. In law, recovering money does not erase an offence if wrongdoing is proven. Repaying funds after the fact does not cancel fraudulent conduct. If that were the case, any financial offender could claim innocence once their assets were seized. The real question is whether the money was diverted, misused or obtained under false pretences—and on this, multiple courts have ruled against him.

"The absence of such (fugitive economic) offenders from Indian courts leads to adverse consequences such as obstruction in investigation of criminal cases, wastage of precious time of the courts and undermining of the rule of law in India," said Sanjay Jain, senior advocate and former additional solicitor general.

Since Mallya did not personally repay the loans he had guaranteed, the authorities recovered the dues by selling pledged assets.

According to the DRT order, these included properties such as Kingfisher House, Kingfisher Villa and a large real estate holding on Vittal Mallya Road in Bengaluru spanning over 193,000 sq. ft. This features UB Towers, Kingfisher Towers and unfinished residential flats. Other properties in Ambur, Mumbai and Bengaluru, as well as assets like machinery and furnishings, were also listed, though further details were pending affidavits. His declared holdings also included equity stakes in United Breweries (3.02 crore shares), United Spirits (2.05 crore shares) and Kingfisher Airlines (5.95 crore shares), along with investments in private firms such as Kingfisher Training & Aviation Services, UB Infrastructure Projects and UBHL (BVI).

3. “Kingfisher Airlines never borrowed any money from the SBI. Just to set the record straight, SBI was a lender to Air Deccan. When Kingfisher and Air Deccan merged, SBI became a lender to Kingfisher Airlines. But it started with Deccan.”

While it may be true that Air Deccan borrowed from SBI and was later acquired by Kingfisher, following the merger, SBI continued to support the debt-ridden airline. As mentioned earlier, in November 2010, SBI led a ₹7,500 crore loan restructuring programme for Kingfisher and converted ₹1,355 crore of debt into equity and extended fresh credit with a repayment moratorium.

In February 2012, SBI provided a ₹1,500 crore lifeline, including working capital and guarantees. Its total exposure rose to around ₹1,600 crore. Later, in mid-2012, SBI was also part of the 17-bank consortium which provided the airline about ₹7,000 crore.

A February 2010 article by India Today notes that a 19-bank consortium already exposed to Kingfisher had held an inconclusive meeting on whether to lend more to the airline.

“The consortium is led by SBI and includes other public sector banks such as Punjab National Bank and three private entities including ICICI Bank. The problem is that the earlier loans to Kingfisher Airlines have been classified as non-performing assets (NPAs) and normally banks do not lend any money to such companies,” the report said.

4. “Made four settlement offers to the bank—through courts they didn't accept it.”

This claim was rebuffed by veteran journalist K Giriprakash, author of The Vijay Mallya Story. In an article for The Federal, he noted that banks declined because “the proposals demanded deep haircuts.”

Later, “unconditional” offers came after Mallya had fled the country and was declared an “economic fugitive”.

“Settlement negotiations during the enforcement action are not acts of goodwill; they are often strategic legal tactics,” he wrote.

5. Mallya claimed high fuel costs, financial crisis and lack of foreign investment led to Kingfisher's collapse.

In their January 2017 paper published in Pacific Business Review International, Sweety Gupta (Assistant Professor, GGS Indraprastha University) and Shiv Gupta (Manager and chief executive, Incrementors Web Solutions) identified six key reasons behind Kingfisher Airlines’ failure. They agreed that the 2008 financial crisis affected international travel demand, fuel costs and airport fees, worsening Kingfisher’s financial health.

However, that was not the only cause. They added that frequent shifts—from economy to luxury and later to low-cost services—confused customers and led to declining interest. The airline also ignored profitable domestic routes.

Further, Vijay Mallya was overly involved in operations, unlike his other businesses which had stable leadership. Kingfisher lacked a long-term chief executive or managing director.

Adding to this, after acquiring the low-cost carrier, Kingfisher treated it as secondary, the research paper says. “Deccan flights were often cancelled in favour of Kingfisher’s, driving customers to competitors,” the authors argue.

They concluded that the airline faced heavy expenses due to fuel, staff salaries, airport fees and taxes, while competition squeezed profit margins. Constant shifts in the service model—from economy to luxury and then merging with a low-cost carrier—left the airline without a stable strategy or time to adjust.

 6. “Was not able to pay money to employees since Karnataka High Court froze the bank account.”

While the Karnataka High Court did freeze Kingfisher’s accounts, this was, as stated earlier, due to non-compliance with court directives.

“Wages had been owed for a long time before the airline collapsed and nothing prevented Mallya from using his personal wealth to help,” wrote Giriprakash earlier this month. Over the years, Vijay Mallya acquired several sports teams, including stakes in Mohun Bagan and East Bengal football clubs, the Dutch Formula One team Spyker (renamed Force India) for $110mn and the IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore for $111mn. While these investments may have seemed strategic, they stretched his focus too thin.

Further, in a case from March 2016, the retirement fund body Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) formed an enforcement squad to investigate anomalies and irregularities in provident fund dues to Kingfisher Airlines employees.

7. “The government told me not to downsize the airline.”

Mallya’s claim that former President and then Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee told him not to downsize the airline does not find mention in other publicly available records. His other claims—that he did not flee the country but went to London to arrange funds to pay off debt and attend an event—also end similarly.

He claimed to have told Finance Minister Arun Jaitley about going abroad in what he called a “fleeting meeting”—an incident the former FM later confirmed, but he denied Mallya’s claims of offering a “legitimate” settlement offer.

“I am a small fry… But I’m the big fish that people want to catch – that’s the trouble,” he told Financial Times a few months after fleeing India in 2016.

8. “Didn’t siphon off money; it was used for airline purposes.”

The ED and CBI beg to differ. Multiple chargesheets allege that loan money was routed to shell companies and overseas accounts. The CBI registered a case based on a complaint from IDBI Bank over a ₹950 crore loan default in 2015. Vijay Mallya and former IDBI officials were charged with fraud and criminal conspiracy. A non-bailable warrant was issued against him.

In 2016, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a case under the PMLA and attached assets linked to Mallya and his associates. According to the ED, between April 2008 and March 2012, ₹3,432 crore was diverted through over-invoicing of aircraft lease rentals. Further, ₹45.42 crore was diverted to pay the rental lease on a corporate jet used exclusively by Mallya. A PMLA court also issued a non-bailable warrant and the ED invoked the India–UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty to aid its probe. Between 2011 and 2016, Kingfisher Airlines allegedly failed to deposit ₹87.5 crore in service tax collected from passengers. A non-bailable warrant was issued against Mallya and former chief executive Sanjay Agarwal.

The Serious Fraud Investigation Office also led a probe into financial irregularities, including an allegedly inflated ₹4,000 crore brand valuation used to secure loans. The UK court that approved his extradition noted “clear evidence of misrepresentation” and “diversion of funds”.

9. “Was made a poster boy by the government.”

At the time, in media, Vijay Mallya appeared to have become the symbol of corporate wrongdoing. As former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan remarked in January 2016—without naming Mallya directly—“If you flaunt your yacht, massive birthday bashes etc. even while owing the system a lot of money… it seems to suggest that you don’t care.”

Mallya’s 60th birthday celebration on 18 December 2015 at Kingfisher Villa in Goa drew public ire. Mumbai Mirror reported performances by Enrique Iglesias and Sonu Nigam, which further fuelled criticism and worsened Mallya’s public image.

However, Mallya’s default was smaller compared to larger NPA cases involving firms like Bhushan Steel, Essar Steel and Alok Industries—part of the so-called “Dirty Dozen”. Even Nirav Modi’s ₹13,000 crore fraud at Punjab National Bank exceeded Mallya’s dues. Still, the amount was far from negligible.

10. “Banks have not given me a statement of account after 15 reminders from my lawyer, including letters to the SBI chairman.”

Now, the former Indian alcohol baron claims he has asked the Karnataka High Court to help provide him with the statement of account for the recoveries made from him. He claims his lawyers reached out to the banks, including the SBI chairman, but have not heard back.

In July 2021, a UK court declared Vijay Mallya bankrupt and rejected his request to delay the order. In February 2025, he challenged the bankruptcy in the High Court, but the judge refused to adjourn proceedings, with the verdict now pending. His legal team also filed an application to annul the bankruptcy, arguing that public comments by India’s Finance Minister had undermined the order. As of now, Mallya remains bankrupt. His assets have been under a freezing order since 2018 and legal appeals are ongoing. He has already paid £200,000 in legal costs and may owe more.