Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions filed by Dr. Vijay Mallya against the judgment dated 09.05.2017, which had found him guilty of contempt of court. The background involved recovery proceedings initiated by a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bengaluru, seeking recovery of over Rs. 6,200 crores. During those proceedings, an oral undertaking was given on 26.07.2013 by the respondents (including Mallya) not to alienate or dispose of their properties. The High Court of Karnataka passed interim injunction orders on 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 restraining the respondents from transferring, alienating, or creating third-party rights over their movable and immovable properties. Despite these orders, US$ 40 million was received in Mallya's account on 25.02.2016 and transferred out within days. The Supreme Court, in its original judgment, found Mallya guilty on two counts: (a) disobeying Supreme Court orders by not disclosing full particulars of assets, and (b) violating the High Court's restraint orders. In the review petition, Mallya contended that the court erroneously recorded that he had not filed a reply to the banks' response dated 08.12.2017, whereas he had filed a reply on 30.01.2017. The court acknowledged this error but found that the reply did not contradict the factual basis of the contempt findings, nor did it offer any explanation for the violations. The court held that the error did not cause any prejudice and that the submissions made by Mallya's counsel were already dealt with and rejected in the original judgment. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed, and Mallya was directed to appear before the court on 05.10.2020 for hearing on the proposed punishment. The Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to facilitate his presence.
Headnote
A) Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Record - Scope of Review - The court acknowledged an error in recording that no reply was filed by the respondent, but held that the error did not cause any prejudice as the reply did not contradict the factual basis of the contempt findings. Review dismissed as no error apparent on record justifying interference (Paras 8-12). B) Contempt of Court - Violation of Restraint Orders - Oral Undertaking and High Court Orders - The respondent was found guilty of contempt for disobeying Supreme Court directions to disclose assets and for violating High Court restraint orders dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013. The review did not alter these findings (Paras 3-4, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition should be allowed on the ground that the court erroneously recorded that no reply was filed by the respondent to the banks' response, and whether such error caused prejudice to the respondent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that the error in recording that no reply was filed did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, as the reply did not contradict the factual basis of the contempt findings. The court directed the petitioner to appear on 05.10.2020 for hearing on the proposed punishment and directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to facilitate his presence.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- error apparent on record
- contempt of court
- violation of court orders
- oral undertaking
- garnishee order
