Assignment- Business law

Submitted by-

Trishla Sharma

S183F0044

Question 1: Cement cartel case.

Answer 1: Before coming to the case, first let us know about what cartel system is: It is
basically an agreement or an association of the companies, having similar businesses.
They have agreed and have grouped together in order to have a healthy competition in
the market and also having similar prices so that there is no disparity in terms of the
price for the customers.

In case of a cartel, penalty of up to 3 times its profit for each year of the continuance of
such agreement or 10% of its turnover for each year of continuance of such agreement,
whichever is higher.

India is the second largest producer of cement in the whole world, first is China. The
cement industry itself is an essential part of the Indian economy, which employees over
millions of people in the country especially in the rural areas.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has recently passed orders regarding the
allegations of anti-competitive agreements and the abuse of dominance amongst the
cement manufacturers under the Competition Act, 2002 and they were imposed a
penalty of more than 60 billion.

The Competition Act,2002 was enacted by the Parliament of India and the objective of
this act is to govern the competition among the companies in India. The act replaces the
old "The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act,1969. Under this law
formulation, the Competition Commission of India came into existence in order to
prevent the abuse of dominance that causes negative impact on competition in India.
The competition should be healthy and in order to maintain and monitor that such act
was needed. This act covers the companies all over India.

This act is a tool to implement and enforce competition policies and in order to prevent
and punish anti-competitive business practices by various firms and companies in the
country and also unnecessary government interference in the market. Government can
sometimes misuse its powers so in order to prevent such things this act is helpful.
Competition law is applicable on written as well as oral agreements, it is also applicable
to the arrangements between the enterprises or persons. The Competition Act, 2002
was first amended by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 and later by the
Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009. This act establishes a Commission which is duty
bound to protect the free and fair competition among the companies and in a way
protecting the interests of the consumers as well. The duty of the commission is-

·To prohibit the agreements or practices that have or are likely to have an
appreciable adverse effect on competition in a market in India, (horizontal and
vertical agreements / conduct);

· To prohibit the abuse of dominance in a market;

· To prohibit acquisitions, mergers, amalgamations etc. between enterprises which

have or are likely to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in markets in
India.

Case facts are-

BAI case: A data was recorded under S. 19(1)(a) of the Act by the Builder's Association
of India (the "Witness") against Cement Manufacturers Association of India ("CMA") and
11 bond assembling organizations, for supposed infringement of S. 3 (hostile to focused
understanding) and S. 4 (maltreatment of overwhelming situation) of the Act. On June
20, 2012, the CCI found the gatherings in repudiation of S. 3(3)(a) and S. 3(3)(b) read
with S. 3(1)6 and forced money related punishment alongside headings to stop and
forgo enjoying any anti competitive action. It further denied CMA to connect with and
partner itself from gathering and flowing data about discount and retail costs and
subtleties on generation and dispatches of concrete organizations to its individuals.

Cement case: This case was gotten as an infringement of Monopolies and Restrictive
Trade Practices Commission under S. 66(6) of the Act. In the moment case, MRTP
Commission had done examinations dependent on the press reports which have been
distributed with respect to the expanded cost of the concrete and a few different
examinations occurred and dependent on that a report was recorded on May 31,2011.
CCI saw the concrete relationship of India as blameworthy and forced a punishment of
3 billion on them.
COMPAT Order: Abused by CCI's requests, the Cement affiliation bid before the
Competition Appellate Tribunal ("COMPAT"), on the grounds of infringement of
standards of characteristic equity. The respondents (Cement Association raised
protests on the grounds of out of line hearing, biasness and a recognition based idea.

COMPAT saw that procedural deformity in nature of non-recognition of standards of

characteristic equity can't be restored in offer, in such a case that normal equity is
abused in the main arrange, the equivalent can't be given as evident right in an intrigue.
No gathering can be constrained to fulfill a vile preliminary. In like manner, the COMPAT
put aside the reviled requests and dispatched the issue to the CCI for crisp mediation of
the issues identifying with the supposed infringement of S. 3(3)(a) and S. 3(3)(b) read
with S. 3(1) of the Act, as per law.

Issues and Arguments

(I) against focused understanding under S. 3 and

(ii) added up to maltreatment of predominance under S.4 of the Act.

CCI had asserted that the bond affiliation were occupied with cartelization by
constraining and limiting the creation and the stockpile of concrete and a kind of tricky
value fixing through value parallelism. It was contended that they deliberately didn't
make most extreme usage of introduced generation limit, bringing about fake shortage,
confined inventory, higher bond costs and anomalous benefits. It was likewise
presented that respondents had partitioned Indian market into 5 zones, in light of their
tasks and expanded cost with no immediate nexus with the fluctuated information
expenses and generation worth caused at various areas. These exercises have set off
an antagonistic effect on the challenge in the land division and influenced shopper
interests on the loose. Concerning maltreatment of predominance, it was presented that
the bond assembling organizations had an overwhelming situation by all things
considered holding 57.23% piece of the pie in India, which they manhandled to
subjectively build concrete costs. Abuse of Dominance and anti-competition in the
market by Cement Association of India: On this point the CCI observed that cement
market was characterized by several players where no single firm or group was in a
position to operate independent of competitive forces or affect its competitors or
consumers in its favor. Further, since the Act did not provide for concept of collective
dominance, the Respondents could not collectively be considered to hold a dominant
position. Hence, no investigation into abuse was required.
CCI's Decision on Anti-Competitive Agreement

Depending on factual data on value creation, supply in concrete industry, minutes and
reports of CMA, office use reports, party declarations, the CCI held that the
Respondents worked in a cartel to cause apparent unfavorable impact in rivalry in bond
industry for May 2009 to March 2011.

a.CMA, through its gatherings, and reports gave a stage to sharing of value, generation,
supply related data for sharing between the bond assembling organizations. CCI
depended on the T-versatile case12 where European Court of Justice had held that, in
an oligopolistic market13 (like concrete industry) the trading of such data that builds the
consistency of market activities between contenders prompts confined extension for
rivalry.

b. Where there is solid value connection between included gatherings, a positive

deduction is drawn towards value parallelism demonstrating coordinated activity.
Concrete industry being occasional, homogenic market is dependent upon unstable
costs, higher variable expenses and is powerless to parallel value design. Nonetheless,
CCI noticed that despite the fact that value parallelism isn't convincing proof, the
equivalent in conjunct with other "in addition to factors, for example, simple access to
rivalry data, item and dispatch parallelism, and limit under use will get the job done to
demonstrate cartel.

c. Cement assembling organizations had intentionally discounted their generation and

delivered significantly less than the introduced ability to make a fake shortage and raise
the costs of concrete so as to win irregular benefits.

Analysis

If there should be an occurrence of S. 3(3) understandings, when it is built up that

deliberate activity exists, it will be assumed that the understanding has a calculable
unfriendly effect on rivalry inside India. The onus to invalidate this assumption lies upon
the supposed gatherings. In light of this, it is appropriate for organizations to keep up
exact value, produce, supply, advertise input and monetary technique. Further,
exchange affiliations ought to have a convention where they not just work in advancing
the interests of their individuals and the businesses they serve, yet in addition for
improving reasonable challenge. They should be delicate to the exchanges and depict
lines between encouraging challenge and hostile to rivalry. Further, as supported by
COMPAT, a significant part of the redrafting case would be blocked if CCI devise an
equitable and reasonable technique for leading examination and request and passing
orders. Accordingly, it is significant that CCI plan (explicitly in oligopolistic markets like
petroleum, steel, autos and so on.) guidelines for leading examinations and conceding
proof.
Conclusion

These two cases actualized the "parallelism in addition to" approach received by the US
and European Courts which requires, demonstrating the presence of "in addition to
factors" past just the company's parallel conduct, so as to build up the presence of a
cartel. Rivalry specialists over the globe are influencing informants in moving toward
them to give data about organizations meeting up and framing a cartel. The Act
accommodates mercy provisions14 where the gathering looking for the equivalent can
benefit concessions by method for collaborating in a request. Consciousness of this can
go far in recognizing and splitting the nearness of cartels.

Question 2: One case of disparagement.

Answer 2: Commercial disparagement and comparative advertisement are an

important subject matter for manufacturers of goods. The main reason arises from the
fact that a consumer’s choice is flexible to be influenced by comparative advertisements
towards a brand’s goodwill. It is noted that such comparative advertisements leave a
negative impression over the market which results in monetary damage to the
manufacturers. In India, there is no specific legislation covering the subject matter of
commercial disparagement.

Meaning of commercial disparagement

· Commercial disparagement is a common wrong, it conveys tortious obligation. The

tort of business belittling is otherwise called business vilification, it happens when an
adverse articulation is made against a person's title to his property for business or his
property with the goal to debilitate others from managing the individual or his business
house.

· Articulations made on the topic of contemptibility, dishonest practices, and

ineptitude are fit for business vilification. For the most part the goal of business slander
is out of line rivalry between organizations, yet it very well may be brought against a
client.

· There is a flimsy line of distinction between business slander and criticism, however
they have all the earmarks of being fundamentally the same as. Right off the bat,
criticism is a tort wherein a false explanation is made against anybody which is
distributed and makes damage the name and notoriety of the individual against whom
such proclamation is made. While, business trashing is select for business houses,
dissimilar to maligning just business house can document a case for business criticism.
Besides, the case for business derision is to ensure the monetary enthusiasm of a
business house and the case for maligning is to secure notoriety all in all sense.

For a fruitful case in regards to business stigmatization, one must stand firm concerning
the accompanying fixings:

· The announcement so made against a business house is false and doesn't mirror
any reality.

· The announcement is made with a goal to cause monetary misfortune or harm.

· There is a genuine misfortune occurring because of the announcement made.

· The contender has owned the expression with the information that it will harm the
business house or has owned the expression carelessly.

Case study: P&G v. Hindustan Unilever:

· Gatherings to the case were FMCG major Procter and Gamble (P&G) and
Hindustan Unilever Limited(HUL), the result of P&G is Head and shoulder which was
sold in sachets and result of HUL is center in addition to cleanser which was sold in
jugs.

· The contention emerged on account of their particular TV plugs with deference their
items. Both the brands contrasted their items with each other in their TV ads.

· In HUL's TV advertisement it contrasted center in addition to cleanser and head and

shoulders cleanser, saying-'' mazbooti de driving enemy of dandruff cleanser se behtar''
and adolescent rupaye ridge against dandruff cleanser se baal jyada tootte hain''.

· Upon this announcement, P&G established a suit guaranteeing order against HUL's
TV ad.

· The Court coordinated HUL to suspend airing of its supposed TV plug a transitory
request. Disillusioned by court's bearing, HUL moved toward the ad standard board of
India for help, which rejected its grievance. Hence, two cross suits were founded, one
by HUL and other by P&G. The court guided every one of the three suits to be chosen
together.

· The suits asserted five TV advertisements distributing dubious proclamations like

"ek rupaye wala cleanser dandruff nahi nikalta, ek, do, youngster washes mein bhi",
"zyada dandruff hataye" or "hostile to dandruff cleanser can harm your hair", professing
to slander in nature by individual offended parties.

· P&G battled that the introduced by HUL was not viable as ASCI had rejected HUL's
objection after it was coordinated to suspend its condemned TVC.

· The part of practicality of the suit was investigated by a solitary judge seat finally. It
was held that the ability to choose whether a promotion is of defaming nature or not is
vested with the common courts and not ASCI, as it was anything but a question goals
body to urge expulsion of ads, award break alleviation or grant harms like common
courts.

· ASCI forces are just confined to planning certain guidelines for overseeing relative
notices, for example, the Code of Self-Regulation in Advertising. Best case scenario it
could prescribe evacuation of any notice in unfavorable cases or forward the issue to an
approved official under the Cable Television Network Act who can preclude the notice
from being communicated.

· Along these lines, the court dismissed P&G's conflict on practicality because of the
distinction in reliefs allowed by ASCI and common courts, and the custom-based law
plan of action to be taken under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code without an arranged
law on slander.

· At that point the court managed the principle issue in the issue, i.e., vilification of
products of the offended parties in each suit. The two gatherings had battled vilification
against one another, while in guard, expressed that their advertisements were
instructive in nature, to teach general society.

· HUL depended on the contention that its TVCs were honest dependent on research
center test outcomes showed in its TVCs. P&G claimed that the said test outcomes are
false in nature. It was additionally fought by HUL that examination of head and shoulder
to center in addition to is like contrasting apples with mangoes.
· The court subsequent to tuning in to both the gatherings, put together its choice with
respect to Marico Ltd. v. Adani Wilmar Ltd. case, which was going by a similar Bench as
for this situation.

· The court reasoned that derision is a comparable face of criticism law. It additionally
held that puffing in the similar commercial is allowed dependent upon specific conditions
as held in cases that were alluded in the Marico's case.

· The instance of De Beers Abrasive v. Universal General Electric Co., was alluded
and the judgment accentuated on false promoting making damage an opponent's
exchange, to maintain that a broker can puff up or proclaim his very own merchandise
to be as well as can be expected; additionally puff up to case that his merchandise are
superior to anything his rival's, however such puffing ought not stigmatize, ruin or
disrespect the results of his adversary.

The court looked into the following factors as laid down in Pepsico . for
determining disparagement:

1. The goal and message ought to be passed on through the storyline.

2. The impact of the ad ought to be either advance the merchant's

item or it needs to vilify other contender's item.

3. The way of publicizing that whether the examination made is

honest or dishonestly criticizing opponent's item. Honest stigmatization is
allowed while, untruthful criticism isn't.

· The Court saw that business demonization goes under the

domain of maligning law, in this way notoriety isn't just confined to
people yet in addition to items. It turns into a matter of appropriate
to the security of notoriety.

· It contemplated that solitary when the words or articulations are

legitimate and dependable in nature or distributed by a non-
exchange rival, other than as unimportant puffing or deals talk, at
that point the assessment of a standard man/customer can be
adjusted.
 · The court likewise to expressed that normal open doesn't go for
the word by word explanation of the commercial though, the open
expects some level of distortion in promotions and it must be tried
whether a sensible man is paying attention to such expressions of
the notice, or not. At exactly that point could an announcement be
called legitimate or solid.

· The court additionally saw that cases made in the near ads are
viewed as less successful on the standard purchaser than in a
circumstance where a similar data was offered in the news. In this
way, HUL's dependence on its research facility test outcomes was
held to be not legitimate or solid in nature and couldn't possibly
modify a standard shoppers feeling.

· The court held that the reprimanded proclamations made in the

supposed TV plugs were not belittling in nature as they fell inside
the passable limits of puffing up in the relative commercial. Such
ads, in the assessment of the court, ought to be supported "in light
of a legitimate concern for energetic challenge and open
edification". In this manner, the court dismissed the disputes of the
offended parties in each suit.

· The transitory directive request against HUL was cleared. The

court discarded the issue before preliminary stage putting together
the judgment with respect to its own involvement and
comprehension of human instinct towards promotions.

· At present, the issue is lying on bid before the Division Bench of

the High Court recorded by P&G just as HUL.

Legal consequences of disparagement and exceptions to it

Legal consequences of disparagement is a civil suit. Person suffering from

disparagement can claim for injunction or damages.

Exception

1. Truth becomes an absolute defense for commercial

disparagement.

2. The statement so made was an opinion and therefore will not

amount to any action.

3. The defendant has a conditional or absolute privilege.

Conclusion

The position of law with regards to commercial disparagement in India is absolutely

in a very underdeveloped state. As the business world is in a great progress, in

accordance to that we are in a greater need for specific laws and legislation.

Question3: Kingfisher case.

Answer 3: Timeline of Kingfisher airlines:

2005: Vijay Mallya chairman of United Breweries (Holding) Limited, started the luxury airline:
Kingfisher Airlines.

2007: Vijay Mallya acquires Air Deccan, which was a low-cost airline, from owner Capt.
Gopinath.

2008: The Air Deccan takeover was formalized and UB group paid up Rs.550 crores (US$79
million) for its stake of 26% in the company.

Later that same year Kingfisher Airlines faced a loss of Rs934 crores (US$133 million) due to
various reasons like oil price increases, acquisition of a financially unsound airline and other
reasons.

2009: The consolidated debt of the airline accumulates to a massive Rs5,665 crores (US$810
million) that increases to Rs7,000 crores (US$1 billion). IDBI bank issues a loan of Rs900 crores
(US$128 million) to the airline.
 · Kingfisher’s board approves a resolution to raise $100 million by various
instruments including Global Depository Receipts. This was in addition to raise capital
for an amount not exceeding Rs500 crores (US$71 million)by a rights issue of equity
shares.

· Kingfisher reports a net loss of Rs418.77 crores (US$59 million) during the
second quarter of the fiscal year. Its income from operations also declines by 13.6
percent during the quarter compared to the same period the previous year. In view of
the huge losses and capacity reduction, Kingfisher decides to lay off nearly 100 pilots.

2010: Banks give the airline an ultimatum of nine months to pay back the entire loan amount
that stands at $1.3 billion.

· Kingfisher Airlines Board approves debt recast package. The airline’s debt now
stands at Rs6,000 crores (US$858 million).

· 2011-Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. sends a notice to the cash-strapped

airline to pay Rs90 crores (US$12million)outstanding dues.

· The Income Tax Department freezes 11 accounts of Kingfisher Airlines for non-
payment of tax.

2012: Kingfisher Airlines cancels several of its flights after the Income Tax Department froze
some of its accounts.

· The carrier operates on a trimmed schedule and faces the prospect of losing a
number of prime flying slots.

· International Air Transport Association asks travel agents to immediately stop

booking tickets on Kingfisher’s behalf for failure to settle dues since February.

· Further trouble, as employees protest delays in salary payment.

· Kingfisher announces reduction of its international operations.

· Revenue department of India threatens to take Kingfisher Airlines to court over

alleged tax evasion, claiming the company has not deposited taxes it collected from
travelers.

· Lenders give two weeks to come up with a plan to improve operations. The airline
had a total outstanding debt of around Rs.7,500 crores (US$1 billion)to a consortium
of 17 banks led by State Bank of India(SBI).

· Unpaid staff protest in Delhi, Mumbai and other airports and almost all of
Kingfisher’s flights from all stations were cancelled as engineers did not certify the
planes to fly.
 · A non-bailable arrest warrant issued against Vijay Mallya, and four other directors
for non-appearance in cases relating to bouncing of cheques issued in favor of GMR
Hyderabad International Airport Limited (GHIAL) towards user charges.

· The carrier loses its flying license as the DGCA refused to renew its Air Operator
Permit (AOP).

2013: DGCA asks the carrier to clear all dues, including pending salaries of employees,
before seeking license renewal.

2014: Kingfisher Airlines reported a net loss of Rs822.42 crores (US$117 million)for the third
quarter ended December 31, 2013.

· United Bank of India declares Mallya and three directors of Kingfisher Airlines as
willful defaulters.

2016: Banks move Supreme Court to ban Mallya’s overseas travel.

· Mallya leaves India on March 2, government tells court.

Money Laundering

Charges of tax evasion were first made when it was conjectured that Mallya had utilized
advance cash gotten from the banks and occupied them abroad to different expense
asylums. Mallya laundered the cash with the assistance of shell organizations with
sham chiefs that were constrained by him. The shell organizations were situated in
seven nations, including the United Kingdom , USA, Ireland and France. These
organizations didn't have any movement and autonomous wellspring of pay. Mallya was
controlling the organizations through his office staff. The executives in said
organizations followed up on headings of UB Group at the order of Mallya.

So as to comprehend why Vijay Mallya was marked an "announced guilty party", it is

imperative to know the definite importance of this term:

As per area 82(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 if any Court in India has any
motivation to accept an individual against whom a warrant has been issued has slipped
off or is covering himself in such a way, that the warrant can't be executed, at that point
such court can distribute a composed declaration expecting him to show up at a
predetermined spot and determined time. The individual is required to show up in at the
very least thirty days of the distributing of the composed decree by the court. Segment
82(2) gives the different manners by which the court can distribute the composed
announcement. Area 82(4) makes reference to that any individual who doesn't conform
to arrangements referenced in Section 82(1), the Court may in the wake of making
request as it might suspect fit, articulate him an "announced guilty party" and issue an
assertion with that impact. On account of VM, he fled the nation on March 2, 2016 after
a consortium of banks moved the Supreme Court to recoup Rs.9,000 crores (US$1.3
billion) they guaranteed he owed them. On April 18, 2016, the Enforcement Directorate
(ED) issued a non-bailable warrant against VM to show up in court in the wake of
dismissing his request that all claims against his organization were 'false and mistaken'.

The ED called VM thrice to show up in court and affirm, however he neglected to do as

such. This conduct made him be named as a "declared wrongdoer".

Ethics Analysis

Claims of illegal tax avoidance were first made when it was guessed that Mallya had utilized
credit cash gotten from the banks and occupied them abroad to different expense safe houses.
Mallya laundered the cash with the assistance of shell organizations with sham executives that
were constrained by him. The shell organizations were situated in seven nations, including the
United Kingdom , USA, Ireland and France. These organizations didn't have any action and
autonomous wellspring of salary. Mallya was controlling the organizations through his office
staff. The chiefs in said organizations followed up on bearings of UB Group at the order of
Mallya.

So as to comprehend why Vijay Mallya was named an "announced guilty party", it is critical to
know the accurate importance of this term:

As indicated by area 82(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 if any Court in India has any
motivation to accept an individual against whom a warrant has been issued has stole away or is
disguising himself in such a way, that the warrant can't be executed, at that point such court can
distribute a composed declaration expecting him to show up at a predetermined spot and
determined time. The individual is required to show up in at the very least thirty days of the
distributing of the composed announcement by the court. Segment 82(2) gives the different
manners by which the court can distribute the composed announcement.

Area 82(4) makes reference to that any individual who doesn't follow arrangements referenced
in Section 82(1), the Court may subsequent to making request as it might suspect fit, articulate
him a "broadcasted guilty party" and issue a statement with that impact.

On account of VM, he fled the nation on March 2, 2016 after a consortium of banks moved the
Supreme Court to recuperate Rs.9,000 crores (US$1.3 billion) they guaranteed he owed them.
On April 18, 2016, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued a non-bailable warrant against VM
to show up in court in the wake of dismissing his request that all claims against his organization
were 'false and off base'.

The ED brought VM thrice to show up in the court and affirm, however he neglected to do as
such. This conduct made him be named as an "announced wrongdoer".

1. Failing in his fiduciary duty to shareholders, employees, and investors:

• An executive of an organization is relied upon to consistently put the interests of the company
and every one of the individuals associated with it over his very own advantages. He is relied
upon to stay faithful and guarantee to keep up the trust of investors, representatives and
speculators. Any sort of irreconcilable circumstances, for example, acquiring a mystery benefit,
obscure/undisclosed business dealings show unfaithfulness with respect to the chief.
• The chief of Kingfisher Airlines, Vijay Mallya depended on such rehearses for his own
increases.

• Kingfisher carriers, the second biggest aircrafts in India, didn't produce benefits for a long time.

• Mallya didn't stop activities regardless of making just misfortunes and enabled investors and
clients to be under the deception the carrier was working appropriately.

• In 2012, the misfortunes of the carrier were freely talked about when Mallya neglected to pay
the pay rates of his representatives. At the point when gotten some information about this,
Mallya made explanations about not having enough cash to pay the pay rates because of
revealed misfortunes.

• Soon in 2013, Diageo gained a 27% stake in United Spirits Limited for Rs.6,500 crores
(US$902 million). In any case, not a solitary bank or worker was paid.

• There was a hypothesis that Mallya had his very own motivation and put the cash in his IPL
(Indian Premier League) cricket crew. A couple of years after the fact he spent a great deal of
the assets for his detailed birthday slam which highlighted prestigious vocalist Enrique Iglesias.

• Such cases are clear instances of Mallya damaging his guardian obligations as an executive of
an organization.

2. Non-Disclosure of Non-Compete Clause

· A probe by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in India found that
corporate ethics were compromised in the merger between Kingfisher Airlines and
Deccan Aviation Limited.

· Kingfisher Airlines had created three new departments in the airline to avoid
paying capital gains tax.

· In addition, a non-compete fee of Rs.30 Crores (US$4 million) was paid to the
owner of Deccan Aviation, Captain Gopinath, which was not disclosed to
shareholders.

· Transparency is vital in a listed business. Full disclosure of information must be

provided to the shareholders, so they can make informed decisions.

· Any kind of non-disclosure of important details points to the dishonesty of the

company director and shows how little he cares about his shareholders.

3. Misuse of Power
•There is a praised statement, "With extraordinary power comes incredible obligation".

•The essential obligation that emerges with power is the duty not to abuse such control.

•In 2010 Mallya was chosen to be a MP of the Rajya Sabha (Upper House), in the
Indian Parliament and utilized his situation for his own utilization.

•He abused his situation as a Member of Parliament to guarantee he was placed in the
common flying board. He did as such to accelerate the endorsement of Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) into the flight division. This assisted endorsement guaranteed that
remote financial specialists could put resources into Kingfisher Airlines when the aircraft
was hitting its lowest point.

•VM exploited access to Parliament. He talked about casually with Union Finance
Minister Arun Jaitley, inside the passages of Parliament, the plausibility of persuading
banks to settle with Kingfisher Airlines. The Finance Minister professes to have denied
his solicitation as it was not made by formal conventions. Following this, Mallya fled the
nation. The accompanying proclamation was made by the Finance Minister in light of
the claims

Present Standing of the Case

Understandably, India wants Mallya to face criminal action relating to loans taken out by his
defunct Kingfisher Airlines and Indian authorities want to recover about $1.3 billion they say
Kingfisher owes.