- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Sentences Vijay...
Supreme Court Sentences Vijay Mallya To 4 Months Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court; Asks Him To Deposit 40 Million US Dollars
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
11 July 2022 10:51 AM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday sentenced fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya to four months imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 2000 for contempt of court.Mallya was found guilty in 2017 for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violation of the orders passed in a case filed by a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India.Pronouncing the sentence today, the Court said that Mallya...
The Supreme Court on Monday sentenced fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya to four months imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 2000 for contempt of court.
Mallya was found guilty in 2017 for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violation of the orders passed in a case filed by a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India.
Pronouncing the sentence today, the Court said that Mallya did not show any remorse for his conduct and did not appear before it during the sentence hearing. The Court added that adequate sentence must be imposed on him to "uphold the majesty of law" and that directions need to be issued to ensure that the amount in dispute is available for execution of the orders. Therefore, the Court has directed Mallya to deposit 40 million US Dollars with 8 percent interest within 4 weeks with the concerned recovery officer, failing which attachment proceedings will be initiated against his properties.
If not deposited, the recovery officer shall take appropriate proceedings for recovery of the amount and the Government of India and its agencies shall provide assistance and complete cooperation. Mallya's transfer of 40 million to beneficiaries in breach of court orders has been declared "void and inoperative".
"Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the facts that the Contemnor never showed any remorse nor tendered any apology for his conduct, we impose sentence of four months and fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) upon the Contemnor. The fine shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court within four weeks and upon such deposit, the amount shall be made over to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. In case the amount of fine is not deposited within the time stipulated, the Contemnor shall undergo further sentence of two months.
We direct the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to secure the presence of the Contemnor to undergo the imprisonment imposed upon him.Needless to say, Government of India including the Ministry of External Affairs and all other agencies or instrumentalities shall carry out the directions issued by this Court with"
A bench comprising Justices U U Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha had reserved orders on the sentence on March 10. The hearing proceeded in the absence of Mallya, who has absconded to the United Kingdom. The Union of India had earlier informed the Court that though extradition of Mallya from the United Kingdom has been allowed, he could not be brought to India in view of some "secret" proceedings pending against him there, the details of which are not known to the Union Government.
Although the Court deferred the sentence hearing few times to give an opportunity to Mallya to appear, it ultimately decided to proceed in his absence in view of his refusal to appear. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta was appointed as an amicus curiae in the case to assist the court in the in absentia hearing.
Mallya, an accused in bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines, is in the United Kingdom.
The apex court's 2017 order had come on a plea by consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI), which had said that Mallya had allegedly transferred USD 40 million received from British firm Diageo, to his children in "flagrant violation" of various judicial orders.
It was dealing with pleas of lending banks seeking contempt action and a direction to Mallya to deposit USD 40 million received from offshore firm Diageo respectively.
The banks had then alleged that Mallya concealed the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in "flagrant violation" of the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court.
Case Title : State Bank of India and others vs Dr.Vijay Mallya
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575
Contempt of Courts Act 1971- Vijay Mallya sentenced to 4 months imprisonment and Rs 2000 fine for contempt of court for disobedience of court orders- It is, well settled that 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. The 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- In a given case, 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 which are found by the court to be contumacious - Para 13
Click Here To Read/Download Order
