New Delhi:
The Supreme Court has directed its registry to explain why the petition filed by businessman Vijay Mallya, who has sought review of its 2017 order holding him guilty of contempt of court for transferring USD 40 million to his children, was not listed before the concerned court for last three years.
A bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ashok Bhushan, which took up Vijay Mallya’s review petition in-chamber on June 16, directed the top court registry to furnish all the details including names of officials who had dealt with the file concerning the review petition for last three years.
“According to the record, placed before us, the review petition was not listed before the court for last three years. Before we deal with the submissions raised in the review petition, we direct the registry to explain why the review petition was not listed before the concerned court for last three years,” the bench said in its June 16 order which was uploaded on the Supreme Court website on Friday.
Taking strong note of the undue delay in listing of the review petition, the bench asked the registry to furnish explanation within two weeks.
“The review petition shall, thereafter, be considered on merits,” the bench said in its order, adding, “As per office report on limitation the review petition was filed in time.”
Vijay Mallya had filed the petition seeking review of the top court’s May 9, 2017 order by which he was held guilty of contempt of court for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violation of the court’s order.
Vijay Mallya, who is an accused in a bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines, is presently in the United Kingdom.
The Supreme Court’s 2017 order had come on a plea by consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI), which had said that Vijay Mallya had allegedly transferred USD 40 million received from British firm Diageo, to his children in “flagrant violation” of various judicial orders.
The top court had earlier asked Vijay Mallya about the “truthfulness” of his disclosure of assets and the transfer of money to his children.
