Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 MAY 2016

Kingfisher Airlines Assets Auction Failed

S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Contributor
S.S. Rana & Co.

S.S. Rana & Co.

Established in 1989, S.S. Rana & Co. is a premier intellectual property and corporate law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from S.S. Rana & Co.

Attempts by a consortium of banks to recover Rs. 9,000 crore invested in Vijay Mallya's Kingfisher Airlines failed to attract buyers as the auction held on April 20, 2016, ended without attracting any bidders at the reserve price.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Lucy Rana
Lucy Rana
Bijit Das
Bijit Das
Author LinkedIn connections

No takers for the King of Good Times!!

Attempts by a consortium of banks to recover Rs. 9,000 crore invested in Vijay Mallya's Kingfisher Airlines failed to attract buyers as the auction held on April 20, 2016, ended without attracting any bidders at the reserve price. The auction apparently failed because of the high base price.

Kingfisher stopped flying in October 2012 for want of cash, leaving creditors, suppliers and employees unpaid and owed banks Rs 9,091 crore ($1.4 billion Approx.). But, now comes the latest twist on an ongoing problem of Vijay Mallya's Debt recovery and Financial Dispute when the banks realised that they couldn't recover much from the assets pledged by Mallya. Interestingly, Indian Banks decided to take possession of nine trademarks to recover debt from Mallya and other defaulters.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law
Article

Use Of Artificial Intelligence (AI) In Courts

On June 3, 2026, the Supreme Court of India’s AI Committee released preliminary draft of the Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 (“The Draft”). This marks a shift from scattered experiments with AI tools for translation, transcription, research and case management. With over 93,000 pending matters as of March 2026, the guidelines aim to ease processes for officials and citizens. AI could help reduce backlogs through automated cause-list preparation, transcription, research, and defect scrutiny, but its use also raises serious concerns.
IndiaTechnology
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

Is Meta Still Just An Intermediary? Why India Is Rethinking Safe Harbour

In mid-September 2026, government sources said Meta Platforms’ Indian operations, Facebook, Instagram and Threads, should no longer be viewed merely as an “internet intermediary” but should also be treated as a “service provider,” arguing that the company’s monetised algorithms actively decide what content gets amplified, distributed and shown to whom. That is a government position, not a new statutory classification, and this article returns to that distinction below.
IndiaMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

FSSAI Raises Turnover Limits For Food Business Registration And Licensing

The change is effected through two instruments: the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Amendment Regulations, 2026, notified via gazette on 10th March, 2026[1] (the “Amendment Regulations”), and a subsequent implementation order dated 13th March, 2026[2] (the “Order”) issued by FSSAI directing all licensing authorities to apply the revised thresholds with effect from 1st April, 2026.
IndiaFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

CERT-In’s New AI-Vulnerability Guidelines: A Quick-Reference For OEMs, Tech Vendors And In-House Counsel

Cybersecurity regulation in India has, until now, largely spoken to the entity that suffers the breach. The 2022 CERT-In Directions issued under Section 70B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 fixed a six-hour reporting clock on the organisation that detects an incident. The new Guidelines flip the lens onto the entity upstream of that breach, the OEM or technology provider that built the product in the first place. For the first time, vendors supplying software, firmware, cloud platforms, or APIs into India carry direct, time-bound, and independently verifiable obligations of their own and not obligations that are merely passed through a customer contract, but obligations CERT-In itself may enforce.
IndiaTechnology
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

Understanding The 50% Wage Rule Under The Code On Wages, 2019: A Cap On Exclusions, Not A Ceiling On Wages

India’s new labour code framework, comprising four consolidated codes enacted between 2019 and 2020, represents the most comprehensive overhaul of employment laws since independence. Among these, the Code on Wages, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) amalgamates the Payment of Wages Act, 1936; the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965; and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, into a single, unified enactment.
IndiaEmployment and HR
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

Mandatory Affidavit In Bail Applications: The Supreme Court’s Zeba Khan Framework And The Bombay High Court Circular In India

Bail is decided at speed and on incomplete information, and the system has long struggled with a recurring problem: an applicant who does not disclose, or who actively suppresses, facts that bear on whether bail should be granted, from a string of earlier rejected bail pleas to a history of antecedents. The Supreme Court’s recent intervention addresses that problem directly, by requiring the material particulars to be placed before the court on oath.
IndiaCorporate/Commercial Law
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.