Dr. Vijay Mallya vs State Bank Of India on 31 August, 2020


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Dr. Vijay Mallya vs State Bank Of India on 31 August, 2020

Author: Uday Umesh Lalit

                                                                                              1

                                                                                     Reportable
                                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                            INHERENT JURISDICTION
                                 REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.2175-2178 OF 2018

                                                        IN

                                  INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION Nos.1-4 OF 2016

                                                       IN
                                                    AND WITH


                                 CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.421-424 OF 2016

                                                        IN

                              SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.6828-6831 OF 2016


                          DR. VIJAY MALLYA                                   …PETITIONER

                                                          Versus

                          STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.                         …RESPONDENTS


                                                   O R D E R

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. These petitions seek review of the Judgment and Order dated

09.05.2017 passed by this Court in I.A. Nos.9-12 & 13-16 of 2016 in SLP

Signature Not Verified (C) Nos.6828-6831 of 2016 with I.A. Nos.1-4 of 2016 in and with
Digitally signed by
INDU MARWAH

Contempt Petition (C) Nos.421-424 of 2016 in SLP (C) Nos.6828-6831 of
Date: 2020.08.31
17:40:10 IST
Reason:

2016.

2

2. The facts leading to the passing of said judgment are set out in

detail therein and for the present purposes we may set out following

features.

(A) In OA No.766 of 2013 filed by the special leave petitioners

(‘banks’, for short) before DRT, Bengaluru seeking recovery of

Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three

Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy

Nine and Paise Thirty Two only), an oral undertaking was given on

26.07.2013 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they would not alienate or

dispose of their properties. One of the prayers made before DRT,

Bengaluru was:-

“(iii) to issue a garnishee order against Respondent
Nos.10 and 11 from disbursing US$ 75 million,…”

(B) When the matter reached the High Court of Karnataka, two orders

were passed by the High Court on 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013, the relevant

portion of the first Order being:-

“In that view, there shall be interim order of injunction
against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 from transferring,
alienating, disposing or creating third party rights in
respect of movable as well as immovable properties
belonging to them until further order in these petitions.”
3

(C) Admittedly, the amount of US$ 40 million which was part of the

sum of US$75 million was received in the account of respondent No.3 on

25.02.2016 and within few days, that is, on 26.02.2016 and 29.02.2016,

said amount of US$ 40 million was transferred out of that account by

respondent No.3.

(D) Despite repeated orders passed by this Court, no clear disclosure

of his assets was made by respondent No.3, nor any details of in-flow and

out-flow of said amount of US$ 40 million were disclosed by him. As a

matter of fact, the existence of the concerned Bank account itself was not

disclosed.

3. In the circumstances, on the issue whether he was guilty of

contempt of court, it was submitted on behalf of respondent No.3 that in

terms of the directions issued by this Court, he was required to disclose the

assets as on 31.03.2016 and as such no direction issued by this Court was

violated; and that the violation, if any, was of the orders passed by the High

Court and, therefore, this Court ought not to proceed in contempt

jurisdiction. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, respondent No.3

was found guilty of contempt of court on following two counts: –

“(a) He is guilty of disobeying the Orders passed by this
Court in not disclosing full particulars of the assets as was
directed by this Court.

4

(b) 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.”

4. During the course of its judgment, this Court relied upon the

response filed by the banks to the “further counter affidavit” filed by

respondent No.3. This response had adverted to the oral undertaking given

by respondent Nos.1 to 3 before DRT, Bengaluru and to the orders dated

03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.

5. It must be stated here that the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by

this Court had given liberty to respondent No.3 to file reply to the

aforesaid response of the banks. It appears from the record that a reply

was filed by respondent No.3 on 30.01.2017. However, it was observed in

Para19 of the judgment under review as under:-

“19. Despite the aforesaid Order dated 11.01.2017
which took note of the violation of the orders passed
by the High Court of Karnataka and though time was
sought to file reply, nothing was filed in reply or
rebuttal by Respondent No.3.”

To similar effect were the observations in Para 27 of the Judgment that

no reply was filed by respondent No.3:-

6. In the instant Review Petitions, it is specifically asserted in ground

“V” as under:-

5

“(v) FOR THAT this Hon’ble Court while passing the
said judgment has erred in recording that the Review
Petitioner did not file a reply or rebuttal to the
response dated 8th December 2017 (“Response”) filed
by the Respondent Banks (Original Petitioners).
Pursuant to the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by this
Hon’ble Court a reply dated 30th January, 2017 was
filed on behalf of the Review Petitioner to the
Respondents’ (Original Petitioners’) Response.”

7. The Review Petitions were placed in Chambers three years after

the filing. Taking note of the aforesaid ground, the Review Petitions were

directed to be placed in open Court. Thereafter, the concerned documents

including Memo of Filing dated 30.01.2017 and copy of the reply dated

30.01.2017 were placed for our perusal.

8. From these facts it is clear that it was an error on part of this Court

to have observed and proceeded on the premise that no reply was filed by

respondent No.3 to the response filed by the banks.

9. Mr. Jai Munim, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 was

therefore asked if there was anything in said reply dated 30.01.2017 (a)

which, in any way, contradicted or contested the basic submissions of the

banks that there was an oral undertaking given to DRT, Bengaluru on

26.07.2013 and orders dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 were passed by

the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; (b) whether the text and the

purport of the undertaking and the orders were different from that

suggested in said response of the banks; and (c) whether any explanation
6

was forthcoming in the reply of respondent No.3 to support the stand that

he was not guilty of violation of said orders.

10. Mr. Munim, learned Advocate was unable to refer to any such

portion from the response of respondent No.3 on aforesaid aspects but

advanced submissions touching upon the questions whether the directions

issued by this Court were violated and whether this Court ought to have

proceeded to exercise contempt jurisdiction when the contempt, on second

count, was of the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka.

11. The Review Petitions were listed for oral hearing to ascertain

whether the error on part of this Court in not taking into account the reply

dated 30.01.2017 had caused any prejudice to respondent No.3. The reply

dated 30.01.2017 had reiterated the submissions advanced earlier by

respondent No.3 and had not in any way contradicted the factum of oral

undertaking given to DRT, Bengaluru and the orders passed by the High

Court of Karnataka or had offered any explanation why said oral

undertaking and the orders could not be relied upon.

12. Though the scope of review was thus limited, we have carefully

considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Munim. Those submissions

were dealt with and rejected in the judgment under review. In our

considered view, the attempt on part of the respondent No.3 to have re-
7

hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out

any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction.

13. These Review Petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

14. In Paras 30 and 31 of the judgment under review the contempt

petitions were directed to be listed on 10.07.2017 for hearing respondent

No.3 with regard to the proposed punishment. Now that the Review

Petitions are dismissed, we direct respondent No.3 to appear before this

Court on 05.10.2020 at 02:00 p.m. and also direct the Ministry of Home

Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to facilitate and ensure the

presence of respondent No.3 before this Court on that day. A copy of this

judgement be sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for facility and

compliance.

15. List the Contempt Petitions on 05.10.2020.

……….……………..J
(Uday Umesh Lalit)

……….…………….J
(Ashok Bhushan)
New Delhi;

August 31, 2020.



Source link