LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS versus DR. VIJAY MALLYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R. [2022] 15 S.C.R. 384 384 STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. DR. VIJAY MALLYA (Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 421-424 of 2016) JULY 11, 2022 [UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: s. 12 – Punishment for contempt of court – Purging of contempt – On facts, action on part of the contemnor in disbursing the amount of US$ 40 million against the text and tenor of orders passed by the High Court and the contemnor guilty of contempt – Orders regarding punishment for contempt and purging of contempt – Held: Apart from punishing the contemnor for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified – Approach may require the court to pass directions either for reversal of the transactions in question by declaring said transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to see that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him – On facts, to meet the ends of justice, the concept of purging of the contempt would call for complete disgorging of all the benefits secured as a result of actions found by the court to be contumacious – Thus, adequate punishment to be imposed upon the Contemnor and must also pass necessary directions – Since the Contemnor never showed any remorse nor tendered any apology for his conduct, sentence of four months and fine of Rs.2,000/- imposed upon the Contemnor – Directions to the Government of India to secure the presence of the Contemnor to undergo the imprisonment imposed upon him – Further issuance of direction that the transactions referred to, in terms of which the amount of US$ 40 million was disbursed to the beneficiaries, the said order is held to be void and inoperative; and the Contemnor and the beneficiaries under said transactions to deposit the amount received along with interest at the rate of 8 % p.a. with the Recovery Officer within the stipulated period. A B C D E F G H 385 Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and other (1991) 4 SCC 406: [1991] 3 SCR 936; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 4 SCC 409 : [1998] 2 SCR 795; Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty & Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 259 : [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 561; Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (2009) 16 SCC 126 : [2007] 3 SCR 1099; Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 650 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 675 – referred to. Rose v. Laskington (1989) 3 AllER 306; Mir v. Mir (1992) 1 AllER 765; Richardson v. Richardson (1989) 3 AllER 779 – referred to. Case Law Reference [1991] 3 SCR 936 referred to Para 2(26) [1998] 2 SCR 795 referred to Para 8 [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 561 referred to Para 8 [2007] 3 SCR 1099 referred to Para 8 [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 675 referred to Para 8 INHERENT JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 421- 424 Of 2016 in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 6828-6831 of 2016. Petition filed for willful disobidience of Court’s Order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the Supreme Court of India 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”. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Kunal Chatterji, Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Lalit Rajput, Ankur Saigal, E. C. Agrawala, Ms. Fereshte D. Sethna, Abhishek Tilak, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, M/s Dua Associates, Anand Sukumar, Dheeraj Nair, Vipin Kumar Jai, Advs. for the appearing parties. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. DR. VIJAY MALLYA A B C D E F G H 386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R. The Order of the Court was passed by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These Contempt Petitions have come up before us pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 9.5.2017 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. After dealing with the facts which led to the filing of the aforestated Interim Applications and Contempt Petitions, this Court found Respondent No.3 (Dr. Vijay Mallya) guilty of committing contempt of Court on two counts. Paragraphs 22
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.