Read Judgment
Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition to pursuant the Judgment and Order dated 9.5.2017 passed by SC, where SCfoundDr. Vijay Mallyaguilty of committing contempt of Court.
Brief Facts:
After dealing with the facts which led to the filing of the aforestated Interim Applications and Contempt Petitions, SC Court found Respondent No.3 (Dr. Vijay Mallya) guilty of committing contempt of Court.An opportunity was given to Respondent No.3 (Contemnor) to file his response and advance submissions on the proposed punishment.The matter was accordingly adjourned to 10.7.2017.The Contemnor however sought review of the Judgment and Order dated 9.5.2017, which application remained pending for some time and was rejected by this Court vide Order dated 03.08.2020. By said order the Contemnor was directed to appear before this Court; and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, was directed to facilitate and ensure the presence of the Contemnor on the date of such appearance.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated thatit iswell 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.
SC noted that 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.
SC observed that the direction to have vacant possession delivered to the rightful claimant was passed by SC in Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty & Ors. SC further relied upon the case ofPravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali & Anr. where it was observed that mere passing of an order of punishment would not be enough or sufficient.
SC stated that tomeet 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.
SC further stated that “in the circumstances, in order to maintain the majesty of law, we must impose adequate punishment upon the Contemnor and must also pass necessary directions so that the advantages secured by the Contemnor or anyone claiming under him are set at naught and the amounts in question are available in execution of the decrees passed in the concerned Recovery Proceedings.”
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “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/- 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.”
Case Title: State Bank of India & Ors. v. Dr. Vijay Mallya
Bench: J. Uday Umesh Lalit, J. S. Ravindra Bhat and J. Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Citation: CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS.421-424 OF 2016
Decided on: 11th July, 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments