SC Rejects Review Petition Filed by Vijay Mallya

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

The Supreme Court on 31st August dismissed the Review Petition filed by the infamous fugitive Vijay Mallya. Mallya had sought a review of the 2017 judgment pronounced by this Court holding him guilty of contempt of the court.

Brief facts of the case

Vijay Mallya is a declared Fugitive Economic Offender. The Government of India declared this in January 2019. There have been plans made to extradite him from the UK, and the latter nation has agreed to cooperate. Mallya has moved the Courts in the UK, challenging the extradition order, but he has not been able to secure any success.

In this present Petition, he has prayed for a review of the 2017 judgment of this Court. In the judgment pronounced by Justice UU Lalit and Justice AK Goel, he was held guilty of contempt of Court. He was convicted for disobeying the order of the Supreme Court in a plea filed by SBI and a batch of creditors. 

SBI had contended in its plea that the Petitioner had disobeyed the Court’s orders when he transferred a sum of $40 million from Diageo Plc. to his children thus making vague and unclear disclosure of his assets. He also absconded from India in March 2016 and ignored many Court summons which stalled him due to non-appearance.

Arguments

Mr Jai Munim represented the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel was unable to refer to any such part from the response of the Petitioner on three specific questions asked by the Court. Instead, the advanced submissions touching upon the questions whether the directions issued by this Court were violated and whether this Court ought to have proceeded to exercise contempt jurisdiction when the contempt, on the second count, was of the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka. 

Court’s Observation

The bench first observed, after hearing the submissions, the scope of the review here was limited. The submissions were dealt with and rejected in the judgment that is under review. The bench stated that in their view, the attempt on part of the Petitioner to have rehearing in the matter cannot be permitted. The submissions do not make out any error on record to justify interference in review jurisdiction.

Court’s Order

The Order was pronounced by a division judge bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Ashok Bhushan. They dismissed the Review Petition and also directed the Petitioner to appear before the Court on 5th October. They directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to help and ensure the same.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -