LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 487 STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS. (I.A. Nos. 9-12 & 13-16 of2016) In (SLP (C) Nos. 6828-6831 of2016) MAY 09, 2017 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.t Contempt of Court: A B c Application before Debt Recove1y Tribunal (DRT) - Seeking recovery of thousands of crores of rupees - Filed by consortium of Banks - Against the Respondents debtors/Guarantors - Respondent Nos. JO and 11 had disclosed that respondent No. 3 (Guarantor) would be paid a sum of US$ 75 million by responde11t No. JO and D out of the said amount, a sum of US $ 40 million would be paid to the Banks immediately (The amount of US$ 40 million was received by respondent No. 3 on 25. 02. 2016) - The Banks moved interlocutory applications before DRT (1) to freeze passport of respondent No. 3 (2) to issue arrest warrant against him (3) to issue E garnishee order against respondent Nos. 10 and 11 from disbursing US $ 75 millir,,1 (4) and to issue direction to respondent No. 3 to disclose his assets on oath - DRT considered the application only in respect of garnishee order - Banks filed writ petition before High Court aggrieved by non-consideration of the applications by DRT and sought directions to DRT to consider the applications filed by F the Banks - The High Court by its orders dated 3.9.13and13.ll.13 restrained the concerned respondents, including respondent No. 3 from transferring, alienating, disposing or creating third party rights in respect of properties belonging to them - High Court however refi1sed to pass directions to DRT - Special Leave Petition jiled - G Respondents offered for settlement - Supreme Court by order dated 7.4.J6 directed respondent No. 3 to disclose his personal assets in order to show his bonafide - Disclosure statement of respondent No. 3 not found sufficient by the Court to show his bonafide - I.A Nos. 9 to 12 of 2016 by the Banks stating that disclosure statement was vague and in violation of the order dated 7.4.16 - Banks also filed H 487 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A contempt petition - Respondent No. 3 stated in his counter-affidavit that the amount of US $ 40 million which he received, gifted to his three children - Held: Respondent No. 3 having not made true and complete disclosure of his properties, has Fiolated the order of Supreme Court dated 7.4.16 and by transferring US $ 40 million to his children has violated the restraint orders dated 3.9.13 and B 13.11. 13 passed by the High Court - Thus guilty of contempt of Supreme Court as well as High Court - Supreme Court can exercise its contempt jurisdiction even with regard to the contempt of High Court as the orders of High Court pertain to the same cause and the actions of respondent No. 3 in not disclosing the account through C which transfers were affected - Respondent No. 3 was adequately put to notice and no prejudice woulrj be caused as a result of such assumption of jurisdiction by Supreme Court - In terms of r. 6 (1) of Rules to Regulate Proceeding for Contempt of Supreme Court, 1975, respondent No. 3 is obliged and duty bound to appear in person - However, one more opportunity is granted to respondent No. 3 on D the proposed punishment for contempt - Rules to Regufate Proceedings for Contempt of Supreme Court, 1975 - r. 6 (1). Adjourning the matter, the Court HELD: 1. The allegations against Respondent No.3 of. E committing of contempt are on two counts, in that - 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 in the same Cause from which the present , proceedings have arisen. [Para 28][508-D-El F 2. The orders passed by this court were clear and unambiguous and Respondent No.3 was called upon to make complete disclosure of his assets. Whether the assets to be so disclosed were covered by the personal guarantee given by RespondenLNo.3 or not was immaterial. He was called upon to G make a complete diseiosure and was bound to comply with the directions. The assertion made by the petitioners-banks that the details of the. bank account held in Edmond De Rothschild Bank were never disclosed by Respondent No.3 is correct. In fact, no details of any bank account with overseas banks were given by H Respondent No.3. The violation by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.