Supreme Court asks union home ministry to ensure presence of Vijay Mallya on July 10

10 May 2017 3:41 PM | General
291 Report

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed the Union Home Ministry to "secure and ensure" the presence of embattled businessman Vijay Mallya, who is currently in the United Kingdom, before it on July 10 for the hearing on the quantam of punishment for contempt of court.

The top court has held Mallya guilty of contempt of court for disobeying its orders by not disclosing full particulars of his assets and also violating the orders of Karnataka High Court by transferring USD 40 million received from British firm Diageo, to his three children.     

India had recently asked Britain to ensure early extradition of Mallya, who is an accused in a bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines.     

"We direct the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to secure and ensure presence of Vijay Mallya before this court on July 10, 2017. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for compliance," a bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit said.     

"We, therefore, adjourn matter to July 10 for hearing Vijay Mallya in person on matters in issue, including one regarding the proposed punishment to be awarded to him for contempt of court," the court, in its 26-page judgement, said.     

The court also termed as "correct" the assertion made by the banks that details of bank account held in Edmond De Rothschild Bank were never disclosed by Mallya.     

"In fact, no details of any bank account with overseas banks were given by Mallya. The violation by Mallya could not be termed as a mere infraction. The violation by Mallya regarding non-disclosure becomes more pronounced because it is this very account held in Edmand De Rothschild Bank that was utilised to transmit funds to the tune of USD 40 million," the bench noted.     

It said all the properties, whether movable or immovable, were governed by the orders of restraint by the high court.     

Edited By

Shruthi G

Reported By

Shruthi G

Comments