Vijay Mallya fails to appear before SC in contempt case

It had directed Mr. Mallya to appear before it today to argue on the quantum of punishment.

In this June 13, 2017 file photo, Vijay Mallya arrives for his extradition hearing arrives at Westminster Magistrates Court in London. Mallya was arrested in London in April on behalf of authorities in India, where he is wanted on charges of money laundering and bank demands that he pay back more than a billion dollars in loans extended to his now-defunct airline.

There was no sign of fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya in the Supreme Court on Monday – the day reserved for deciding his punishment for contempt of court.

 

In May, the Supreme Court had found him guilty of willful disobedience of the court's order to come clean about his assets so that the banks could recover his loans to the tune of Rs. 9200 crore.

 

The court also found through the banks that Mr. Mallya had not disclosed a sum of 40 million (Rs. 600 crore) received from British liquor major Diageo Plc following his resignation as Chairman of United Spirits Limited in February 2016. Mr. Mallya explained that the money was disbursed among his three adult children and there was no way of getting it back. The banks had argued that Mr. Mallya's actions were in clear contempt of court orders against alienating his assets.

 

When the case came up for hearing, State Bank of India-consortium's counsel, advocate Robin Ratnakar David, informed the Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit that the notice of contempt was duly served through the Ministry of Home Affairs. There was no legal representation from Mr. Mallya's side.

 

Mr. Mallya's absence comes despite the court giving him two months, from May 9, to make his appearance in the court and prepare his defence.

 

Earlier, senior advocate Shyam Divan, for the banks, said “the gentleman (Mallya) is mocking the Indian judicial system”. The government also seconded the banks, saying the businessman was taking the Supreme Court “for a ride” and his conduct showed he cared “two hoots” for the judiciary.

 

While reserving the contempt case against Mr. Mallya for judgment on March 9, Justice Goel had asked the Centre whether there was any action that could be taken under the criminal law to secure the presence of Mr. Mallya back in an Indian court.

 

Mr. Rohatgi had informed the Supreme Court that the case of deportation was before the Westminster Magistrates Court, and a positive action from the Supreme Court would bolster India's case against the businessman in the U.K.

 

The court scheduled the case for July 14 and asked the Solicitor General to be present in court on that day.