DR. VIJAY MALLYA versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 658 · Decided: 31-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
DR. VIJAY MALLYA
v.
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Review Petition(C) Nos. 2175-2178 of 2018)
in
(I.A.Nos. 1-4/2016)
with
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 421-424 of 2016)
in
(SLP(C)Nos. 6828-6831 OF 2016)
AUGUST 31, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Review – Review of judgment dtd.09.05.17 sought – Held:
On facts, 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 – However, attempt on part
of respondent No.3 to have re-hearing in the matter cannot be
permitted – No “error apparent on record” to justify interference in
review jurisdiction – Review petitions dismissed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition (Civil)
Nos. 2175-2178 of 2018 in I.A. NOS. 1-4/2016.
With
Contempt Petition (C) No. 421-424/2016 in SLP (C) NOS. 6828-
6831 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2017 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) Nos. 6828-6831 OF 2016.
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Jai Munim, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal,
E. C. Agrawala, Karan Singh, Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, V.M.
Kannan, Advs. for the appearing parties.
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 658
658
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
659
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 (C) Nos.6828-6831 of 2016 with I.A. Nos.1-4 of 2016 in and with
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.421-424 of 2016 in SLP (C) Nos.6828-6831
of 2016.
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.”
(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.
DR. VIJAY MALLYA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
(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.
(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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.