SC to MHA: Mallya must appear before October 5
Apex court dismisses his plea seeking review of the 2017 verdict
The Supreme Court on Monday directed fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya to appear before it on October 5 while dismissing his plea seeking review of the 2017 verdict which held him guilty of contempt for transferring $40 million to his children in violation of court orders.
The top court also directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to facilitate and ensure the presence of Mallya before it in October.
Mallya, an accused in bank loan default case of over ~9,000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines, is in the United Kingdom.
A Bench of Justices U U Lalit and Ashok Bhushan, while dismissing his review petitions against the May 9, 2017, verdict said: “In our considered view, the attempt on part of the respondent No.3 (Mallya) to have rehearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out any ‘error apparent on record’ to justify interference in review jurisdiction”.
The Bench said, “Now that the review petitions are dismissed, we direct respondent No.3 to appear before this, Court on October 5, 2020, at 2.00 pm and also direct the MHA, Government of India, New Delhi to facilitate and ensure the presence of respondent No.3 before this Court on that day”.
The top court had asked Mallya to appear on October 5 for hearing him with regard to the proposed punishment in the contempt case.
The top court directed that of this judgment be sent to the home ministry for facility and compliance.
The Bench recorded in its order that $40 million, part of a $75 million payment, was received in the account of Mallya on February 25, 2016 and within few days, on February 26 and February 29, 2016, it was transferred out of that account by Mallya.
“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 $40 million were disclosed by him. As a matter of fact, the existence of the concerned Bank account itself was not disclosed,” the top court said.
Mallya had contended that in terms of the directions issued by the top court, he was required to disclose the assets as on March 31, 2016 and as such no direction issued by the Court was violated.
He had said that the violation, if any, was of the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court and, therefore, the top court ought not to proceed in contempt jurisdiction.