On Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya, seeking a review of its May 2017 order holding him guilty of contempt for transferring USD 40 million to his children, in violation of the court’s order.
The top court had previously pronounced Mallya guilty of contempt of court for violating its orders as well as that of the Karnataka High Court.
“He is guilty of disobeying the orders passed by this court (Supreme Court) in not disclosing full particulars of the assets as was directed by this Court. He is guilty of violating the express orders of restraint passed by the high court of Karnataka in the same cause from which the present proceedings have arisen,” the Supreme Court had said in its 2017 order.
When Mallya’s case came up for hearing once again in June 2020, the top court asked its registry officials to give an explanation regarding the undue delay in listing the review petition.
Also Read: Tripura Shocker: Seven teenagers rape 8-yr-old after inviting her to play hide and seek, 6 held
The matter was taken up on August 6 and was adjourned again due to the absence of some crucial records related to the case. The case was then heard on August 27 and a verdict was reserved.
At least 14 banks had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Bengaluru seeking recovery of over Rs 6,300 crore that Mallya’s companies owed to them in 2016. The banks had also asked for the freezing of Vijay Mallya’s passport and had demanded his immediate arrest.
The Debt Recovery Tribunal, however, didn’t address the pleas, and the banks had to move the Karnataka High Court. The Court also denied directing the DRT to take prompt action against Mallya and the banks then moved the Supreme Court.
However, Mallya had already fled the country by then. In its May 2017 judgement, the Apex Court had asked the Centre to produce Mallya before the court for deciding the punishment to be handed down to him for contempt of court.
“We direct the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to secure and ensure presence of Respondent No.3 before this Court on 10.07.2017,” the order read.
He is still to be brought back to the country.
