The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to March 10 the hearing on the question of punishment of fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya, found guilty of contempt.
A Bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit is mulling over whether the court can punish Mr. Mallya in absentia or whether it should appoint an amicus curiae for him.
The case has seen a series of adjournments recently. In a hearing on February 10, the Bench had said it wanted Mr. Mallya, who is believed to be in the United Kingdom, or a lawyer representing him, to come clean on whether he intends to address the court on the punishment.
The court has already made it clear that it will eventually take the case to its "logical conclusion". The case has been pushing from one date to another since Mr. Mallya was found guilty of contempt by the top court in May 2017.
Differing opinions
The opinions in court differ on whether or not the court should go ahead and punish Mr. Mallya.
Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, who was appointed amicus curiae in November to aid the court in the case, had pointed out that the court had given a number of opportunities to Mr. Mallya to present his case, but he had abstained. Mr. Gupta, however, had agreed that the court could appoint an amicus for him.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said natural justice was met when the court offered him opportunities to be heard in the case. "He was given, but he is not taking," Mr. Mehta had said.
In November last year, the court had made it clear that it did not intend to wait for Mr. Mallya "forever".
It has been over four years since the Supreme Court found Mr. Mallya guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of its order to come clean about his assets and not disclosing a sum of $40 million (₹600 crore) he had received from British liquor major Diageo Plc following his resignation as Chairman of United Spirits Limited in February 2016.
The Ministry of External Affairs had informed the court that though Mr. Mallya's extradition had "attained finality", certain "confidential" proceedings of an undisclosed nature in the U.K. were stalling the process.
Review plea dismissed
On August 30, 2020, the apex court had dismissed Mr. Mallya's review petition against the 2017 verdict of contempt. The court had found no merit in Mr. Mallya's three-year-old review plea against his conviction.
In his original arguments before the apex court in 2017, Mr. Mallya had informed the court that the $40 million was one among “thousands of transactions” he did and cannot be counted as an asset. He said he had no control over that money now as he had already disbursed it among his three adult children, who are U.S. citizens.
