This blog delves into the intricate legal analysis conducted by the court in a contempt case, focusing on the respondent’s responses and the court’s scrutiny. The case highlights the importance of adherence to court orders and the consequences of non-compliance. Let’s delve deeper into the nuances of judicial proceedings and the court’s interpretative role in ensuring justice is served.
Facts
- In OA No.766 of 2013, banks sought recovery of Rs.6203.35 crores from respondent Nos.1 to 3.
- An oral undertaking was given on 26.07.2013 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to alienate or dispose of their properties.
- Prayer made before DRT, Bengaluru included issuing a garnishee order against Respondent Nos.10 and 11.
- The existence of the concerned Bank account was not disclosed during the proceedings.
- Respondent No.3 found guilty of contempt for disobeying orders and violating restraints by High Court of Karnataka.
- Amount of US$ 40 million received by respondent No.3 on 25.02.2016 transferred out within a few days.
- No clear disclosure of assets or details of in-flow and out-flow of US$ 40 million provided by respondent No.3 despite repeated orders.
- Review Petitions were directed to be placed in open Court due to the lack of disclosure and transfer of funds.
- Observations in Para 27 of the Judgment were similar to the effect that no reply was filed by respondent No.3.
Also Read: Analysis of High Courts’ Jurisdiction and Court Orders Under Article 142
Issue
- The issue at hand is whether the directions issued by the Court were violated
- Further, it is also questioned whether the Court should have exercised contempt jurisdiction as the contempt was against orders of the Karnataka High Court
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- Mr. Munim, learned Advocate for respondent No.3 was unable to refer to any portion from respondent No.3’s response that contradicted the banks’ submissions
- Mr. Munim was asked if the reply dated 30.01.2017 contradicted the oral undertaking given to DRT, Bengaluru on 26.07.2013 and the orders dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- It was queried if the text and purport of the undertaking and orders differed from what the banks suggested in their response
- The reply of respondent No.3 did not provide any explanation to support the claim that he did not violate the orders
- The Respondent argued that…
- The Respondent provided evidence to support…
- The court considered the Respondent’s arguments and evidence…
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- Review Petitions listed for oral hearing to ascertain error in not considering reply dated 30.01.2017
- Review Petitions asserted reply was filed on 30.01.2017
- Error found in judgment stating no reply was filed by respondent No.3
- Documents proved reply was filed by respondent No.3 on 30.01.2017
- Court erred in proceeding on the premise that no reply was filed by respondent No.3
- The oral undertaking and orders could not be relied upon due to lack of written documentation
- The reply dated 30.01.2017 restated previous submissions without addressing the oral undertaking or High Court orders
Decision
- Review Petitions dismissed, judgment stands
- No re-hearing allowed, no apparent error on record
- Contempt petitions to be heard on 10.07.2017, respondent No.3 to appear for proposed punishment
- Respondent No.3 directed to appear on 05.10.2020 at 02:00 p.m., Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure presence
- Contempt Petitions listed for 05.10.2020
Case Title: DR. VIJAY MALLYA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA (2020 INSC 523)
Case Number: R.P.(C) No.-002175-002178 / 2018
