New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing for Thursday of the contempt case against fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya, accused in bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines, in a contempt case where he has been found guilty. The matter listed before the bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra S Bhat and PS Narasimha has adjourned on request of amicus curiae senior advocate Jaideep Gupta.
A bench comprising justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha on Wednesday posted the contempt case for hearing at 2 PM Thursday after senior advocate and amicus curiae Jaideep Gupta sought adjournment on grounds that he would be busy arguing another case.
The top court, on February 10, had fixed the contempt case against Mallya for hearing on Wednesday and had given the fugitive businessman the last opportunity to appear before it either personally or through his lawyer.
The bench had said it has given multiple opportunities to Mallya to appear either personally or through a lawyer and had even given specific directions in its last order dated November 30, 2021.
The bench had said it has given multiple opportunities to Mallya to appear either personally or through a lawyer and had even given specific directions in its last order dated November 30, 2021. Amicus curiae Gupta had said the court has found the contemnor guilty of contempt of court, and punishment has to be imposed.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had clarified that it's not the government of India's stand that something confidential is going on in the case in the United Kingdom but it is what the government has been informed by the UK that there is something going on which can't be shared. Last year, the top court while saying that it has waited "long enough" and cannot "wait longer now" for Mallya to get extradited from the United Kingdom to India, decided to go ahead with the hearing on quantum of punishment in the contempt case against him.
Earlier, Solicitor General appearing for Ministry of External Affairs, had furnished a document of Deputy Secretary (Extradition) Ministry of External Affairs, to which the bench had said the proceedings for extradition of Mallya to India from United Kingdom has attained finality but certain "confedential proceedings" are pending in UK, details of which are not known. Centre had also said that Mallya has already exhausted all his avenues of appeal in UK.
On the previous occasion, the Centre had informed the top court that legal complexities in the United Kingdom are preventing the extradition of fugitive Mallya, but the government of India is making all efforts and doing its best to extradite him. The Centre had further said that extradition of Mallya was ordered by the highest court of the United Kingdom but it has not been put into effect. The government had said it is not aware of the "secret' ongoing proceedings in UK which is delaying Mallya's extradition.
The apex court had dismissed a plea filed by Mallya seeking a review of its May 2017 order holding him guilty of contempt. Mallya is an accused in a bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines and is presently in the United Kingdom.
The Supreme Court had issued its May 9, 2017, order on a plea by a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI), claiming he had allegedly transferred USD 40 million received from British firm Diageo to his children in "flagrant violation" of various judicial orders. Earlier, the apex court had asked Mallya about the "truthfulness" of his disclosure of assets and the transfer of money to his children.
At that time, the top court 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 to the banks respectively. The banks had then accused Mallya of concealing 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.
With Agency inputs
