DR. VIJAY MALLYAversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

658                      [2020]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   13 S.C.R. 658               [2020] 13 S.C.R.


A                            DR. VIJAY MALLYA
                                        v.
                     STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
                   (Review Petition(C) Nos. 2175-2178 of 2018)
B                                       in
                               (I.A.Nos. 1-4/2016)
                                       with
                   (Contempt Petition (C) No. 421-424 of 2016)
C
                                        in
                        (SLP(C)Nos. 6828-6831 OF 2016)
                               AUGUST 31, 2020
          [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
D
            Review – Review of judgment dtd.09.05.17 sought – Held:
      On facts, it was an error on part of this Court to have observed and
      proceeded on the premise that no reply was filed by respondent
      no.3 to the response filed by the banks – However, attempt on part
      of respondent No.3 to have re-hearing in the matter cannot be
E     permitted – No “error apparent on record” to justify interference in
      review jurisdiction – Review petitions dismissed.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition (Civil)
      Nos. 2175-2178 of 2018 in I.A. NOS. 1-4/2016.
            With
F
            Contempt Petition (C) No. 421-424/2016 in SLP (C) NOS. 6828-
      6831 of 2016.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2017 passed by this
      Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) Nos. 6828-6831 OF 2016.
G            Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Jai Munim, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal,
      E. C. Agrawala, Karan Singh, Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, V.M.
      Kannan, Advs. for the appearing parties.


H
                                       658
         DR. VIJAY MALLYA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA                              659


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              A
      UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
      1. These petitions seek review of the Judgment and Order dated
09.05.2017 passed by this Court in I.A. Nos.9-12 & 13-16 of 2016 in
SLP (C) Nos.6828-6831 of 2016 with I.A. Nos.1-4 of 2016 in and with
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.421-424 of 2016 in SLP (C) Nos.6828-6831            B
of 2016.
       2. The facts leading to the passing of said judgment are set out in
detail therein and for the present purposes we may set out following
features.
                                                                              C
      (A) In OA No.766 of 2013 filed by the special leave petitioners
(‘banks’, for short) before DRT, Bengaluru seeking recovery of
Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three
Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy
Nine and Paise Thirty Two only), an oral undertaking was given on
26.07.2013 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they would not alienate or           D
dispose of their properties. One of the prayers made before DRT,
Bengaluru was:-
      “(iii) to issue a garnishee order against Respondent Nos.10 and
      11 from disbursing US$ 75 million,…”
                                                                              E
       (B) When the matter reached the High Court of Karnataka, two
orders were passed by the High Court on 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013,
the relevant portion of the first Order being:-
      “In that view, there shall be interim order of injunction against the
      Respondent Nos.1 to 3 from transferring, alienating, disposing or
                                                                              F
      creating third party rights in respect of movable as well as
      immovable properties belonging to them until further order in these
      petitions.”
      (C) Admittedly, the amount of US$ 40 million which was part of
the sum of US$75 million was received in the account of respondent
No.3 on 25.02.2016 and within few days, that is, on 26.02.2016 and            G
29.02.2016, said amount of US$ 40 million was transferred out of that
account by respondent No.3.


                                                                              H
660            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 13 S.C.R.


A             (D) Despite repeated orders passed by this Court, no clear
      disclosure of his assets was made by respondent No.3, nor any details
      of in-flow and out-flow of said amount of US$ 40 million were disclosed
      by him. As a matter of fact, the existence of the concerned Bank account
      itself was not disclosed.
B            3. In the circumstances, on the issue whether he was guilty of
      contempt of court, it was submitted on behalf of respondent No.3 that in
      terms of the directions issued by this Court, he was required to disclose
      the assets as on 31.03.2016 and as such no direction issued by this Court
      was violated; and that the violation, if any, was of the orders passed by
      the High Court and, therefore, this Court ought not to proceed in contempt
C
      jurisdiction. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, respondent
      No.3 was found guilty of contempt of court on following two counts: -
            “(a) He is guilty of disobeying the Orders passed by this Court in
            not disclosing full particulars of the assets as was directed by this
            Court.
D
            (b) He is guilty of violating the express Orders of Restraint passed
            by the High Court of Karnataka in the same Cause from which
            the present proceedings have arisen.”
             4. During the course of its judgment, this Court relied upon the
E     response filed by the banks to the “further counter affidavit” filed by
      respondent No.3. This response had adverted to the oral undertaking
      given by respondent Nos.1 to 3 before DRT, Bengaluru and to the orders
      dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.
             5. It must be stated here that the order dated 11.01.2017 passed
F     by this Court had given liberty to respondent No.3 to file reply to the
      aforesaid response of the banks. It appears from the record that a reply
      was filed by respondent No.3 on 30.01.2017. However, it was observed
      in Para19 of the judgment under review as under:-
            “19. Despite the aforesaid Order dated 11.01.2017 which took
G           note of the violation of the orders passed by the High Court of
            Karnataka and though time was sought to file reply, nothing was
            filed in reply or rebuttal by Respondent No.3.”
             To similar effect were the observations in Para 27 of the Judgment
      that no reply was filed by respondent No.3:-
H
         DR. VIJAY MALLYA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA                              661
                  [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

     6. In the instant Review Petitions, it is specifically asserted in       A
ground “V” as under:-
      “(v) FOR THAT this Hon’ble Court while passing the said judgment
      has erred in recording that the Review Petitioner did not file a
      reply or rebuttal to the response dated 8th December 2017
      (“Response”) filed by the Respondent Banks (Original                    B
      Petitioners). Pursuant to the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by
      this Hon’ble Court a reply dated 30th January, 2017 was filed on
      behalf of the Review Petitioner to the Respondents’ (Original
      Petitioners’) Response.”
        7. The Review Petitions were placed in Chambers three years           C
after the filing. Taking note of the aforesaid ground, the Review Petitions
were directed to be placed in open Court. Thereafter, the concerned
documents including Memo of Filing dated 30.01.2017 and copy of the
reply dated 30.01.2017 were placed for our perusal.
       8. From these facts it is clear that it was an error on part of this   D
Court to have observed and proceeded on the premise that no reply was
filed by respondent No.3 to the response filed by the banks.
       9. Mr. Jai Munim, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3
was therefore asked if there was anything in said reply dated 30.01.2017
(a) which, in any way, contradicted or contested the basic submissions        E
of the banks that there was an oral undertaking given to DRT, Bengaluru
on 26.07.2013 and orders dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 were passed
by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; (b) whether the text and
the purport of the undertaking and the orders were different from that
suggested in said response of the banks; and (c) whether any explanation
was forthcoming in the reply of respondent No.3 to support the stand          F
that he was not guilty of violation of said orders.
       10. Mr. Munim, learned Advocate was unable to refer to any
such portion from the response of respondent No.3 on aforesaid aspects
but advanced submissions touching upon the questions whether the
directions issued by this Court were violated and whether this Court          G
ought to have proceeded to exercise contempt jurisdiction when the
contempt, on second count, was of the orders passed by the High Court
of Karnataka.
     11. The Review Petitions were listed for oral hearing to ascertain
whether the error on part of this Court in not taking into account the        H
662            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 13 S.C.R.


A     reply dated 30.01.2017 had caused any prejudice to respondent No.3.
      The reply dated 30.01.2017 had reiterated the submissions advanced
      earlier by respondent No.3 and had not in any way contradicted the
      factum of oral undertaking given to DRT, Bengaluru and the orders passed
      by the High Court of Karnataka or had offered any explanation why
      said oral undertaking and the orders could not be relied upon.
B
             12. Though the scope of review was thus limited, we have carefully
      considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Munim. Those submissions
      were dealt with and rejected in the judgment under review. In our
      considered view, the attempt on part of the respondent No.3 to have re-
      hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make
C     out any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review
      jurisdiction.
            13. These Review Petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
             14. In Paras 30 and 31 of the judgment under review the contempt
D     petitions were directed to be listed on 10.07.2017 for hearing respondent
      No.3 with regard to the proposed punishment. Now that the Review
      Petitions are dismissed, we direct respondent No.3 to appear before this
      Court on 05.10.2020 at 02:00 p.m. and also direct the Ministry of Home
      Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to facilitate and ensure the
      presence of respondent No.3 before this Court on that day. A copy of
E     this judgement be sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for facility and
      compliance.
            15. List the Contempt Petitions on 05.10.2020.

      Divya Pandey                                            Peitions dismissed.
F




G




H