STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS.
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 487, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Hearing Adjourned
Segment: Issues
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 487 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS. 
(I.A. Nos. 9-12 & 13-16 of2016) 
In 
(SLP (C) Nos. 6828-6831 of2016) 
MAY 09, 2017 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.t 
Contempt of Court: 
A 
B 
c 
Application before Debt Recove1y Tribunal (DRT) - Seeking 
recovery of thousands of crores of rupees - Filed by consortium of 
Banks - Against the Respondents debtors/Guarantors - Respondent 
Nos. JO and 11 had disclosed that respondent No. 3 (Guarantor) 
would be paid a sum of US$ 75 million by responde11t No. JO and D 
out of the said amount, a sum of US $ 40 million would be paid to 
the Banks immediately (The amount of US$ 40 million was received 
by respondent No. 3 on 25. 02. 2016) -
The Banks moved 
interlocutory applications before DRT (1) to freeze passport of 
respondent No. 3 (2) to issue arrest warrant against him (3) to issue 
E 
garnishee order against respondent Nos. 10 and 11 from disbursing 
US $ 75 millir,,1 (4) and to issue direction to respondent No. 3 to 
disclose his assets on oath - DRT considered the application only 
in respect of garnishee order - Banks filed writ petition before High 
Court aggrieved by non-consideration of the applications by DRT 
and sought directions to DRT to consider the applications filed by 
F 
the Banks - The High Court by its orders dated 3.9.13and13.ll.13 
restrained the concerned respondents, including respondent No. 3 
from transferring, alienating, disposing or creating
third party rights 
in respect of properties belonging to them - High Court however 
refi1sed to pass directions to DRT - Special Leave Petition jiled -
G 
Respondents offered for settlement - Supreme Court by order dated 
7.4.J6 directed respondent No. 3 to disclose his personal assets in 
order to show his bonafide - Disclosure statement of respondent No. 
3 not found sufficient by the Court to show his bonafide - I.A Nos. 9 
to 12 of 2016 by the Banks stating that disclosure statement was 
vague and in violation of the order dated 7.4.16 - Banks also filed 
H 
487
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A contempt petition - Respondent No. 3 stated in his counter-affidavit 
that the amount of US $ 40 million which he received, gifted to his 
three children - Held: Respondent No. 3 having not made true and 
complete disclosure of his properties, has Fiolated the order of 
Supreme Court dated 7.4.16 and by transferring US $ 40 million to 
his children has violated the restraint orders dated 3.9.13 and 
B 
13.11. 13 passed by the High Court - Thus guilty of contempt of 
Supreme Court as well as High Court - Supreme Court can exercise 
its contempt jurisdiction even with regard to the contempt of High 
Court as the orders of High Court pertain to the same cause and 
the actions of respondent No. 3 in not disclosing the account through 
C which transfers were affected - Respondent No. 3 was adequately 
put to notice and no prejudice woulrj be caused as a result of such 
assumption of jurisdiction by Supreme Court - In terms of r. 6 (1) of 
Rules to Regulate Proceeding for Contempt of Supreme Court, 1975, 
respondent No. 3 is obliged and duty bound to appear in person -
However, one more opportunity is granted to respondent No. 3 on 
D the proposed punishment for contempt - Rules to Regufate 
Proceedings for Contempt of Supreme Court, 1975 - r. 6 (1). 
Adjourning the matter, the Court 
HELD: 1. The allegations against Respondent No.3 of. 
E committing of contempt are on two counts, in that - 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. b) He 
is guilty of violating the express Orders of Restraint passed by 
the High Court in the same Cause from which the present , 
proceedings have arisen. [Para 28][508-D-El 
F 
2. The orders passed by this court were clear and 
unambiguous and Respondent No.3 was called upon to make 
complete disclosure of his assets. Whether the assets to be so 
disclosed were covered by the personal guarantee given by 
RespondenLNo.3 or not was immaterial. He was called upon to 
G make a complete diseiosure and was bound to comply with the 
directions. The assertion made by the petitioners-banks that the 
details of the. bank account held in Edmond De Rothschild Bank 
were never disclosed by Respondent No.3 is correct. In fact, no 
details of any bank account with overseas banks were given by 
H Respondent No.3. The violation by Respondent No.3 could not
STATE.BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES 
489 
LTD. AND ORS. 
be termed as a mere infraction. The violation by Respondent A 
No.3 regarding non-disclosure becomes more pronounced 
because it is this very account held in Edmand De Rothschild 
Bank that was l!tilized to transmit funds to the tune of USS 40 
Million. [Para 21)(505-D-F) 
3. Orders dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 were p_assed B 
by the High Court restraining the concerned respondents 
including Respondent No.3 and that the orders were passed in 
proceedings arising from Original Application before Debt 
Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The present proceedings "before this 
court have also arisen from the very same Original Application. 
The orders of restraints passed by the High Court were therefore · C 
in the very same proceedings with which this Court is presently 
concerned. Said orders bound the concerned respondents 
iitcluding Respondent No.3 and restrained them from transferring, 
alienating, disposing or creating third party rights in respect of 
movable as we_!! as immovable properties belonging· to them ·till · D 
fu.rther orders in the proceedings. Onjilain reading of the Orders, 
whether the properties were in the hands of the concerned 
respondents on the date when the o·rders of restraint were passed 
by the High Court or had come in their hands or under their 
control at a later point in time, regardless of such qualification all 
properties whether movable or immovable were governed by the E
orders of restraint. There is no ambiguity of any sort and the 
Orders of restraint are quite clear. Consequently, funds amounting 
to USS 40 million which came to be under the control of and in 
the hands of Respondent No.3 were completely covered and 
governed by said orders of restraint. [Para 22)(505-G-H; 506-~-
F 
DJ 
. 4. lt is beyond any doubt that the payment of USS 40Million 
was received by Respondent No.3 on 25.02.2016. These facts 
are admitted by Respondent No.3 in his "further counter 
affidavit". The explanation that the funds now stand transferred G 
in favour of the trusts over which Respondent No.3 has no control 
at all, in fact aggravates the extent J>f violation. It is clear that the 
funds which were in control of Respondent No.3 have now been 
sought to be put beyond the reach of pro~esse~ of court, which is' 
·reflective of the intent. (Para 23)(506-E-G) 
H
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
5. The applications moved by the petitioners-banks on 
02.03.2016 themselves had made clear reference to the fact that 
as disclosed by respondent Nos.10 and 11 to London Stock 
Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange respectively Respondent 
No.10 would pay to Respondent No.3 a sum of US$75 million and 
8 
accordingly petitioners-banks had moved four interlocutory 
applications for orders against ·respondent Nos.10 and 11 for 
disbursing said amount of US$ 75 million. The amount of US$ 40 
Million so received by Respondent No.3 was therefore subject 
matter of the present controversy. The least that was expected 
of Respondent No.3 was to disclose relevant facts pertaining to 
C receipt and disbursement of US$ 40 million. The violation on 
that count is thus not only against the directions issued by this 
court but also against express mandate of orders dated 03.09.2013 
and 13.11.2013 passed in the proceedings in question. [Para 
241[506-G-H; 507-A-BJ 
D 
6. The Supreme Court as the Apex Court is the protector 
and guardian of justice throughout the land, therefore, it has a 
right and also a duty to protect the courts whose orders and 
judgments are amenable to correction, from commission of 
contempt against them. It cannot be said that if the jurisdiction 
is so assumed and cognizance is taken by this Court, Respondent 
E No.3 would lose one opportunity of having the matter assessed 
at the level of the High Court. Since this
Court is dealing with· 
the very same cause in which the orders of restraint were passed 
by the High Court and since it is coupled with the violation of 
orders of this Court as well, the matter can and ought to be dealt 
F 
with by this Court. 
The record shows that by order dated 
11.01.2017 the violation of those orders for restraint passed by 
the High Court was taken note of by this Court and the Counsel 
appearing for respondent had sought time to file an appropriate 
reply. However, no such reply was filed. Respondent No.3 was 
thus put to clear notice about the violation of those orders of 
G restraints passed by the High Court. As such, no prejudice has 
been caused or visited upon Respondent No.3. [Paras 26, 27)[507-
E; 508-B-C] 
7. Though the contempt on the second count.is theoretically 
of the orders passed by the High Court since those orders pertain 
· H to the very same Cause and the actions on part of Respondent
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES . 491 
LTD. AND ORS. 
No.3 in not disclosing the account in question· through .which the A 
transfers were affected also fall with respect to contempt on first 
count, this Court proceeds to exercise its jurisdiction even witb 
regard to th(l second count. Respondent No.3 was adequately 
put to notice and no prejudiee has been caused as a result of 
such assumption of jurisdiction by this court. [Para 28)(508-E-F) 
B 
8. In terms of Rule 6 (1) of Rules to Regulate Proceeding 
for Contempt of Supreme Court 1975, Respondent No.3 was 
obliged and duty bound to appear in person in response to the 
notice issued by this Court in Contempt Petition. Instead, he 
chose to file application·seeking (ecall of the orders issuing notice. 
There is no reason to recall that order and I.A. Nos.1 to ·4 of C 
2016 preferred by Respondent No.3 in Contempt Petition Civil 
No.421-424 of 2016 are dismissed. Respondent No.3 is therefore 
duty bound to appear in person in the present contempt 
proceedings. [Para 29][508-G-H; 509-AI 
9. Since Respondent No.3 has not filed any reply to the D 
Contempt Petition nor did he appear in person, though this Court 
has found him guilty of having committed contempt of court, it is 
necessary to give him one more opportunity and also hear him 
.·on the proposed punishment. Therefore the matter is adjourned 
for hearing Respondent No.3 in person on matters in issue E 
including one regarding the proposed
punishment to be awarded 
to him for contempt of court. [Para 30)(509-B-C) 
Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, 
Delhi.v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (1991)' 4 S.CC 
406: [1991) 3 ,SCR.936 - relied on. 
Indian Airports Employees' Union v. Ranjan Chatterjee. 
and Anr. (1999) 2 SCC 537:(1999) 1 SCR 326 -
referred to. 
· · Case Law Reference 
[1999] 1 SCR 326. . 
referred to 
Para 20 
. 
[1991] 3 SCR 936 
relied on 
Par1126 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 9-12 & 13-16 
of2016 in SLP (C) Nos. 6828-6831 qf2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2016 ofth.e High Court, 
F 
G 
H
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A ofKamataka, at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 12191-94 of2016. 
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 
OF2016. 
B 
Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv, Robin R. David, 
Munawwar Naseen, Anikhet Gowda, (for M/s. Dua Associates), Advs. 
for the Petitioners. 
C. S. Vidyanathan, Sr. Adv, Jai Munim, Mahe sh Agarwal, Ankur 
Saigal, Munjad Bhatt, Himanshu Satija, E. C. Agrawala, Ms. Catherine 
c A., Dheeraj Nair, Vipin Kumar Jai, Aditya Sarin, Navroop Singh, B., 
Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Advs. for the Respondents. 
Intervenor-in-person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. State Bank of India and 13 other 
D banks 1 have filed the instant sp~cial leave petitions challenging the order 
dated 04.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru 
in Writ Petition Nos.12191-12194 of2016 refusing to pass any ad interim 
order against Respondent Nos.3, 10 and 11. According to the petitioners-
banks they had individually advanced to Respondent No. I loans of 
E · thoui;ands of crores of rupees; that by Master Debts Recast Agreement 
dated 21.10.20 I 0 and other related documents the existing loans were 
restructured and treated as a single facility; and that Respondent Nos.2 
and 3 executed a corporate guarantee dated 21.12.2010 and a personal 
guarantee dated 21.12.2010 respectively, guaranteeing repayment of the 
entire
amount due. Further, since the above accounts were classified as 
F non-performing assets, the petitioners-banks filed OA No.766 of2013 
against Respondent Nos.I to 9 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru 
(for short "DRT Bengaluru), inter alia 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 
G Nine and Paise Thirty Two only) from Respondent Nos.I to 4. It is the 
case of the petitioners-banks that despite applications having been filed 
requiring Respondent Nos.I to 4 to disclose details of their assets on 
' State Bank of India, Axis Bank Limited, Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, The 
Federal Bank Limited, IDBI Bank Limited, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu & Kashmir 
Bank Limited, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Barik, State Bank of Mnore, 
H 
UCO Bank, United Bank oflndia and Oriental Bank of Commerce~
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES 
493 
LTD. AND ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
oath, said respondents never disclosed the assets and instead, said A 
respondents secretly tried to dispose of their assets with an intention to 
defeat the recovery proceedings pending before DRT Bengaluru. 
2. According to the petitioners-banks, on 25.02.2016 Respondent 
Nos. I 0 and 11 disclosed to London Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock 
Exchange respectively that Respondent No.3 had resigned as Chairman 
B 
of Respondent No.11; that Respondent No. I 0 would pay to Respondent 
No.3 a sum of US$ 75 million; that out of said amount a sum of US$ 40 
million would be paid immediately; and that Respondent N o.3 had made 
a statement to the press confirming said transaction and had stated that 
he intended to settle in London. In these circumstances, the petitioners-
C 
banks moved four interlocutory applications before ORT Bengaluru on 
02.03.2016 seeking interim prayers: 
"(i) to freeze the passport of Respondent No.3 
(ii) to issue an arrest warrant against Respondent No.3,· 
(iii) to issue a garnishee order against Respondent Nos. I 0 and 11 
D 
from disbursing US$ 75 million, and 
(iv) to issue a direction to Respondent No.3 to disclose his assets 
on oath." 
3. It is the case of the petitioners-banks that ORT Bengaluru 
E 
heard arguments only with respect to the Garnishee Application on 
02.03.2016 and posted the matters for orders on 04.03.2016 but failed to 
consider the
other applications. Aggrieved by such non-consideration of 
the interlocutory applications by ORT Bengaluru, despite the urgency 
and the enormous amounts involved in the matter, the petitioners-banks 
moved the High Court ofKamataka by filing Writ Petition Nos.12191- . F 
12194 of2016 seeking appropriate directions to ORT Bengaluru to hear 
and dispose of the applications moved by the petitioners-banks on 
· 02.03.2016 expeditiously. Since the High Court refused to pass any ad 
interim direction, the aforesaid special leave petitions were filed in this 
Court. 
4. By Order dated 09.03.2016 this Court issued notice returnable 
on 30.03.2016 and also permi~ted the petitioners-banks to serve notice 
on Respondent No.3 through the Indian High Commission, London or 
any other Embassy. The Order dated 30.03.2016 discloses that Mr. 
C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of 
G 
H
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A Respondent Nos. I and 3 and the.Order re_porded his submission that a 
proposal was already given to the Chairperson of State Bank of India 
(Consortium leader of banks) for settlement of dues of Respondent Nos. I 
to4. 
S. The matter came up on 07.04.2016 when the Counsel appearing 
B for the petitioners-banks submitted that the offer made by Respondent 
Nos. l to 4 was not acceptable though the Consortium was not against 
any settlement provided the respondents showed their bona tides for a 
meaningful negotiation. This Court observed in its Order dated 7.04.2016:-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"As a pre-condition to such steps on bona tides, it is submitted 
that the third respondent should first of all disclose, on oath, the 
details of all the properties - movable, immovabie, tangible, 
intangible, shareholdings and any right, title or interest including 
beneficial interest and those held in fiduciary capacity, in private , 
trusts, public trusts, companies, partnerships, limited liability 
partnerships, and/or any other entity/ies both in India and abroad 
etc. in any form and there should be a substantial deposit made 
before this Court ........ 
.. ... Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan and Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned 
Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.I to 4 have 
s_ubmitted that they may be given short time to file their response 
to the main petition. 
Accordingly, they are granted time upto 21.04.2016 to file their 
r~sponse.
Jn the response filed by the third respondent, he shall 
disclose the details of all his properties - movable, immovable, 
tangible, intangible, shareholdings and any right, title or interest 
including beneficial interest and those held in fiduciary capacity, 
in private trusts, public trusts, companies, partnerships, limited 
liability partnerships, and/or any other entity/ies both in India and 
abroad etc. in any form whatsoever and also the rights, indicated 
above, in the name also of his wife and children, as on 31.03.2016. 
It shall also be indicated in the response as to what is the amount 
he is prepared to deposit before this Court so as to show his 
bonafide for a meaningful negotiation. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan and 
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel, have submitted
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES 
495 
LTD. AND ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
that on the next date of hearing, specific instruction shall be 
A 
obtained from the third respondent as to his probable date of 
appearance in person before this Court." 
6. The matter thereafter came up on 26.04.2016, by which time 
counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No.3 disclosing his personal 
assets to the tune of Rs.20, 174, 146,601, majority of which had been 
B 
under attachment by the Income Tax Department. The details of the 
assets of Respondent No.3 situated outside the country and those of his 
wife and children were furnished in a sealed cover. This Court; in its 
Order dated 26.04.2016 observed:-
" ....... It is also submitted that the personal guarantee executed C 
by the 3rd respondent with. the banks do not cover his assets 
abroad. We have no problem in recording the above submissions 
and we do so. However, we find that in the Order dated 7.04.2016, 
this Court had directed the Respondent No.3 to disclose the assets 
in an affidavit. The only purpose for disclosing the assets was to 
D 
have a fair idea for the petitioners to go for a meaningful settlement 
on the proposals made by Respondent No.3. There is no petition 
before us for clarification or modification of Order dated 
07.04.2016. ln the above circumstances, we do not find any tenable 
objection in disclosing these assets to the petitioners. 
E 
The learned senior counsel further submits that
the wife and 
children are American citizens and they are not the parties before 
this Court. Whatever protection is available to them under law, 
they are free to avail. This disclosure is only for the purpose of 
enabling the petitioners to have a fair idea for a meaningful 
settlement. 
F 
We are distressed to note that Respondent No.3 has not responded 
to our Order dated 7th April, 2016 in the letter and spirit of the 
said Order. He was to show us his bonafides by showing the 
color of money in the form of a substantial deposit towards dues 
in the region of 18,000 crores to arrive at a meaningful settlement. 
G 
It appears there is no bonafides in his offer for settlement. 
Apparently, statements made by counsel on his behalf were made 
only as a ploy to gain time. 
H
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The Registry is directed to disclose the statement of assets 
furnished in the sealed cover, tp the petitioners." 
7. On 28.06.2016 RespondentNo.10 filed a memo in 0.A. No.766 
of 2013 pending before DRT, Bengaluru along with two documents 
stating that an amount of US$ 40 million was paid to Respondent No.3 
B on 25.02 .. 2016. Said memo was to the following effect:-
"MEMO 
The opponent 2 in .the above application begs to submit the below 
mentioned documents: 
C 
1. Extract confirming payment of US$ (US Dollars) 40 Million to 
D 
Defendant No.3 on 2-5.02.2016. 
2. Resignation of Defendant No.3 from the Board of United 
Spirits Ltd .• 
WHEREFORE the Opponent No.2 prays that this Memo and 
enclosures be taken on record in the interests of justic .. " 
8. On 14.7.2016 I.A. Nos.9 to 12 of 2016 were fihd by the 
petitioners-banks stating that the disclosure statement made by 
Respondent No.3 and furnished to the petitioners-banks in terms of the 
E aforesaid Order dated 26.04.2016 was vague and lacked in material 
particulars; that the location of the assets mentioned in the statement 
was so unclear that it would be impossible for any person to identify the 
location of the property; and that Respondent No.3 had undisputedly 
received a sum of US$ 40 million as qisclosed in the memo dated 
_ 28.06.2016 but there was no whisper about said amount in the disclosure 
F 
~tatement. It was submitted:-
G 
H 
"18. It is therefore clear
that Respondent No.3 has willfully 
disobeyed the directions i§sued by this Hon'ble Court on 7.04.2016. 
Respondent No.3 is therefore guilty of contempt of the Order 
dated 29.04.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court. The Petitioners' 
reserve liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the 
Respondent No.3 in this regards. 
22. ln view of the abov~, it is just and necessary that this Application 
. 
-
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES 
497 
LTD. AND ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
is allowed and Respondent No.3 is directed to disclose and furnish 
A 
all particulars and all descriptions of all his properties- movable, 
immovable, tangible, intangible, shareholdings and any right, title 
or interest including beneficial interest and those held in fiduciary 
capacity, in private trusts, public trusts, companies, partnerships, 
limited liability partnerships, and/or any other entity/ies both in 
B 
India and abroad etc. in any form whatsoever as on 31.03.2016. 
If this application is not allowed as prayed for, the Petitioner and 
the public at large will be put to irreparable loss and injury." 
In the circumstances it was prayed that Respondent No.3 be 
directed to make a complete and detailed disclosure of the assets as 
C 
directed by this Court in its Order dated 7.04.2016. 
9. On 14.07.2016 itself the petitioners-banks filed Contempt 
Petition Nos. 421-424 of 2016 submitting that appropriate contempt 
proceedi11gs be initiated for deliberate and willful violation of the Order 
dated 7.04.2016 passed by this Court. Paragraphs 20 to 24 of the petition D 
were as under:-
0 
"20. A reading of the Disclosure Statement made by Contemnor 
clearly reveals that the Contemnor has not at all obeyed the 
directions of this Hon'ble Court dated 07.04.2016. One of the 
primary directions given by this Hon'ble Court to the Contemnor 
was that he should disclose the proper
details of all his properties-
E 
movable, immovable, tangible, intangible, shareholdings and any 
right, title or interest including beneficial interests and those held 
in fiduciary_capacity, in private trusts, public trusts, companies, 
. partnerships, limited liability partnerships; and/or any other entity/ 
ies both in India and abroad etc. in any form whatsoever, as on 
F 
31.03.2016. However, Contemnor has not at all disclosed the details 
..ofthe assets in various forms/entities such as beneficial interest, 
etc. and thereby intentionally concealing the information. In fact, 
there is no whisper regarding the said details in the Disclosure 
Statement. 
21. The disclosure is prima facie vague and lacks any material 
particulars. The location of the assets mentioned in the Disclosure 
Statement is so unclear that it is not practically possible for any 
person other than the Alleged Contemnor to identify the location 
G 
H 
~ 
\ 
--
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
of the properties._ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
22. Further, it is stated that the Alleged Contemnor had received a 
sum of US$ 40 million from Respondent No.IO pursuant to an 
Agreement dated 25.02.2016 entered into between Respondent 
No.3 and Respondent No.IO. 
23. It is pertinent to mention here that after disposal of the captioned 
Special Leave Petition, on 28.06.2016 the Respondent No. I 0 filed 
a Memo along with two documents in the DRT, stating that the 
above mentioned amount of US$ 40 million was paid to alleged 
Conternnor on 25.02.2016. A copy of the said Memo dated 
28.06.2016 is annexed herewith ........... . 
24. A reading of the above documents clearly establishes that as 
on 26.04.2016 when the alleged Conternnor filed the Disclosure 
Statement in this Hon'ble Court, the alleged Conternnor had 
already received the above mentioned amount of US$ 40 million 
before 31.03.2016. In fact the memo clearly shows that the said 
amount of US$ 40 million was transferred by Citi Bani<:, being 
Respondent No.IO's bank, via J.P. Morgan Chase N.A. Bank 
(intermediary Bank) to the account of the Alleged Contemnor 
being maintained with Edmond De Rothschild (Suisse) SA Geneva. 
However, there is no whisper of the above mentioned amount or 
the transaction in the Disclosure Statement. The alleged Contemnor 
had deliberately, willfully and contumaciously concealed the 
aforementioned payment/transaction which is against the letter 
and
spirit of the Order dated 07.04.2016." 
F 
10. On 25 .07.2016 this Court issued notice in aforesaid contempt 
petition as well as in I.A Nos.9 to 12 of 2016. 
11. On 24.08.2016 counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 
Respondent Nos. I to 4 in I.A. Nos.9 to 12 of 2016. lt was submitted:-
" ... i.t is incorrect that in the disclosures the Respondent No.3 
G 
has provided information pertaining to only a few of his overseas 
assets as on 31.03.2016 as alleged. The Respondent No.3 
reiterates that the disclosures made to this Hon 'ble Court. are 
accurate. It is respectfully submitted that in view of what is 
recorded in the Order dated 26'h April, 2016 as to the purpose of 
H
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES 
499 
LTD. AND ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
the disclosures, it is now not open to the Petitioners-banks to 
A 
contend that in the event that the ·DRT allows the Original 
Application, the Petitioners-banks may. not be able to proceed 
against the properties mentioned in the disclosures as aUeged or 
for reasons alleged. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention' that 
the Respondent No.3 had expressly submitted before this Hon'ble 
B 
Court on 261h April, 2016 that "the personal guarantee executed 
by the 3ro Respondent with the banks do not cover his assets 
abroad". It is denied that all particulars and all descriptions of the 
assets as contemplated by the Order dated 7'
11 April, 2016 have 
not been provided, deliberately or otherwise. It is denied that there 
is any reason or basis for directing the Respondent No.3 to once 
C 
again disclose and furnish particulars and description of his 
properties as alleged or in the manner alleged. · It is denied that 
if the I.A. of the Petitioners-banks is not allowed, the Petitioners 
or the public at large will be put to irreparable loss or injury." 
12. Applications being I.A. Nos.1to4 of2016 were also fikd on D 
behalf of Respondent No.3/ Alleged Contemnor for recall of Order dated 
25 .07.2016 passed by this Court issuing notice in contempt petition. It 
was sub1'1itted by Respondent No.3:-
" ............. It is further submitted that the disclosures made by 
Respondent
No.3/ Alleged Contemnor to this Hon'ble Court were 
E 
(a) pursuant to the Order dated 7'
11 April,2016 were made "as on 
31.03.2016" and were accurate as on 31.03.2016", and (b) far 
from being made under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 41 (2) of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were "only for the purpose of 
enabling the petitioners to have a fair idea for a meaningful 
settlement" as observed in the order dated 26'
11 April, 2016. It is 
respectfully submitted thatthe Petitioners are incorrectly alleging 
that the disclosures are inaccurate, and are now seeking to 
substantially alter the basis and purpose of the disclosures, as is 
evident from a mere pernsal of the submissions in paragraphs 21 
and 25 of the present Contempt Petition. 
F 
G 
..... .It is denied that Respondent No.3 has not obeyed the 
directions of this Hon'ble Court dated_7'
11 April, 2016 or has not 
disclosed the details of the assets as alleged or in the manner 
alleged. It is denied that the disclosure is vague or lacks material 
particulars. It is denied that the location of the assets in the 
H
500 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
disclosure is unclear as alleged or in the manner alleged. The 
statement of assets is as on a particular date, obviously it cannot 
detail the day to day transactions of receipts-or expenditures; nor 
did the order require the present respondent to do so. It is denied 
that the Respondent No.3/Alleged Contemnor has deliberately or 
willfully or contumaciously concealed the aforesaid payment 
against the letter and spirit of the Order dated 7•h April, 2016." 
While seeking recall of the Order dated 25.07.2016 it was also 
prayed that the personal appearance of Respondent No.3/Alleged 
Contemnor in the present contempt petition be dispensed with. 
c 
13. Around this time I.A. Nos.13 to 16 were filed on behalf of 
B.N .P Paribas seeking impleadment in aforesaid Special Leave Petition 
Nos.6828-6831 of2016. 
14. On 29.08.2016, this Court issued notice in respect of I.A. 
Nos.I to 4 of2016 seeking recall of the Orderdated25.07.2016. In their 
D reply filed on 07.09.2016 to aforesaid I.A. Nos.I to 4 of 2016, it was 
submitted by the petitioners-banks that the alleged contemnor had not 
filed any reply to the contempt petition nor had he appeared in person in 
response to the contempt petition as required by Rule 6(1) of Rules to 
Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Supreme Court 1975 and that 
present application for recall was a mere ruse to circumvent the law. It 
E was submitted:-
F 
G 
H 
"6. The Alleged'Contemnor has
received the sum of US$ 40 
million from Respondent No. I 0 pursuant to an Agreement dated 
25-02-2016 entered into between Respondent No.3 and 
Respondent No.IO. However, the Alleged Contemnor has 
suppressed the receipt of US$ 40 million from Respondent No.10 
even in the Application under reply. The non disclosure of 
whereabouts of US$ 40 million received from Respondent No.1 O 
further discredits the Alleged Contemnor. 
7. The Alleged Contemnor has not denied the existence of his 
bank account held in Edmond De Rothschild Bank, Geneva. 
However, details of this bank account did not find mention in the 
list of his foreign assets filed before this Hon 'ble Court on 
26.04.20 l6. It is respectfully submitted that this is an act of willful 
concealment and the Alleged Contemn or is in violation of Order 
dated 07-04-2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court."
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES 
501 
LTD. AND ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
15. When IA Nos.9-12 of 2016 along with Contempt Petition A 
Nos.421-424 of2016 came up before this Court on 25.10.2016, it was 
prima facie found that Respondent No.3 had not made a proper disclosure. 
In the premises, this Court observed and directed:-
"Having heard learned Attorney General appearing for the 
applicants and Shri C.S.Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel B 
appearing for Respondent No.3, we are prima facie of the view 
that Respondent No.3 has not made a proper disclosure in terms 
of our Order dated 07.04.2016. Therefore, Respondent No.3 is 
directed to make a complete disclosure of all his properties and in 
particular, about the receipt of US$ 40 Million. It shall be disclosed 
as to when this amount was received; where was it deposited and 
C 
how the same has been dealt with up to date. Respondent No.3 
shall also furnish the particulars of the assets abroad with full 
details thereof, as has been given with regard to the .assets in . 
India." 
16. Respondent No.J thereafter filed "further counter affidavit" D 
in aforementioned I.A. Nos.9-12 of2016 on 23.11.2016. The affidavit 
enclosed letter dated 18.11.2016 issued by Edmond De Rothschild 
(Suisse) S.A. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit was to the following effect: 
"On a mere perusal of the letter dated l 81h November, 2016 issued 
by Edmond De Rothschild (Suisse) S.A. (Annex. "R-2" hereto), 
E 
it is evident
that the US$ 39,999,994 million paid by Diageo Plc 
was received on 25'h February, 2016. On instructions of 
Respondent No.3, an aggregate sum of US$ 39,999,993.99 was 
paid to the following parties on 261h and 29th February, 2016 
. 1 
, 
resoect1ve1v: 
NAME OF PARTY 
AMOUNT 
F 
S. Three Gift Settlement 
US$13 ,000,000 . . 
(a Trust the sole beneficiary 
(On 26.02.2016) & US$ 
of which is Siddartha Mallya, 
333,331.33 (on 29.02.2016) 
son of Resoondent No.3) 
L. Three Gift Settlement 
US$13,000,000 
(a Trust the sole beneficiary 
(On 26.02.2016) & US$ 
G 
of which is Leena Mall ya, 
333,331.33 (on 29.02.2016) 
dau2hter of Resoondent No.3) 
T. Three Gift Settlement 
US$13 ,000,000 
(a Trust the sole beneficiary 
(On26.02.2016)& US$ 
of which is Tanya Mallya, 
333,331.33 (on 29.02.2016) 
dau!!hter of Respondent No.3) 
TOTAL 
US$ 39,999,993.99 
H
502 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 3 S.C.R. 
Each of the three children of Respondent No.3, who are the sole 
beneficiaries of the aforesaid Trusts, are majors and are citizens 
of the United States of America. Respondent No.3 is neither the 
Settlor nor the Trustee nor the beneficiary of any of the aforesaid 
. named Trusts, and has no control over the Trusts or the manner in 
which the respective corpuses of each ·or the aforesaid Trusts is 
utilized. However, the respective corpuses as they stood on 31" 
M.arch, 2016 have been included in the statements of assets of 
· the three children handed over to this Hon'ble Court in sealed 
envelope on 26'h April, 2016." 
17. The response was thereafter filed by the petitioners.~banks to 
C the aforementioned "further counter affidavit" filed by Respondent No.3. 
Attention was invited to the restraint Orders passed by the High Court 
of Karnataka on 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013. It was submitted that the 
transfer of US$ 40 million by Respondent No.3 to his children was not 
only in contempt of the Orders passed by the High Court but was also. 
D an attempt to subvert the Course of Justice by diverting the funds to 
shield them from ongoing recovery proceedings. Paragraphs 13 to 16 of 
the reply were as under: 
E· 
F 
G 
H 
"13. Notwithstanding the above, it is respectfully submitted that 
pursuant to filingof0.1\ No.766/2013 before the Hon'ble DRT, 
Bengaluru, on 26.07.2013, Respondent Nos.I to 3 gave an orai 
undertaking
before the Hon'ble.ORT, that they would not alienate 
or dispose of their properties. Thereafter, since no interim order 
was passed by the Hon'ble ORT, Petitioners filed a writ petition 
bearing W.P.No.38870/2013 & W.P.No.39048-39052/2013 before 
theHon'bleHigh Court ofKarnataka, seeking a writ in the nature 
of Mandamus directing the Hon'ble ORT to hear and dispose of 
the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners in the OA i.e. 
IA No. 2593/2013 to 2598/2013 & IANo.3034/2013 expeditiously. 
In the aforesaid writ petition, the Hon 'ble High Court of Karnataka 
was pleased to pass a restraint Order on 03.09.2013 against 
respondent Nos. I to 3 herein in the following terms: 
"In that view, there shall be interim order of injunction against the 
Respondent Nos. I to 3 from transferring, alienating, disposing or 
creating third party rights in respect of movable as well as 
immovable properties belonging to them until further order in these 
petitions." (emphasis supplied)
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES 
503 
LTD. AND ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
14 .. The said order was further confirmed by the order dated A 
13.11.2013 passed in the above mentioned writ petitions, whereby 
the said writ petitions were disposed of. Copy of the orders dated 
03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of 
Karnataka in W.P.No.38870/2013 & W.P. No.3904~-39052/2013 
are annexed .. .. .. .. .. . 
B 
15. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent No.3 has clearly 
and flagrantly violated the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of 
Kamataka and is guilty of contempt of Court. It is stated that by 
transferring the US$ 40 million to his children, the Respondent 
No.3 has not only acted in contempt of the Hon'ble High Court, 
but has also tried to subvert the course of justice by diverting the 
C 
funds offshore to shield it from the recovery proceedings on going 
before the Hon'ble DRT. Therefore, it is essential that the said 
US$ 40 million be brought back by the Respondent No.3 and be 
deposited with this Hon'ble Court, or the Hon'ble DRT, pending. 
the disposal of the recovery proceedings. It is further submitted D 
that it is settled law that this Hon'ble Court has the power to 
punish for contempt of its subordinate Courts. Therefore, it is 
prayed that this Hon'ble Court hold the Respondent No.3 guilty 
of contempt of the Hon 'ble High Court of Kamataka. 
16. It is further pointed out that even the. statement that the 
E
Respondent No.3 has transferred the said US$ 40 million t') his 
children does not hold water. On perusal of the further counter 
affidavit of the Respondent No.3, the explanation provided by the 
Respondent No.3 regarding the disbursal of US$ 40 million prima 
facie does not correlate with the statements given on behalf of his 
children. The Respondent No.3 has failed to explain why the 
F 
US$ 40 million was disbursed to his children despite an oral 
undertaking to the contrary given before the Hon'ble DRT on 
· 26.07.201 {and despite being injuncted by way of orders dated 
03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of 
Kamatakain W.P. No.38870/2013 & W.P. No.39048-39052/2013. 
G 
The said orders injuncting the Respondent ~o.3 from alienating 
his assets has attained finality as it was never challenged by the 
Respondent No.3 till date." 
· 18. I.A. Nos.9-12 of2016 along with Contempt Petition Nos.421-
424 of2016 thereafter came up before this Court on 11.01.2017. Having H
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 3 S.C.R. 
A gone through the response filed by the petitioners-banks to "further 
counter affidavit" filed by Respondent No.3 which inter alia referred to 
the orders dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed by the High Court 
ofKarnataka, this Court passed the following Order: 
"In the affidavit filed on 10.12.2016, the petitioners have brought 
B 
to the notice of this Court that the transfer of US$ 40 Million in 
favour of the children of Respondent No.3 is in flagrant violation 
of the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka. Therefore, 
it is prayed that appropriate orders may be issued to secure the 
deposit of the said amount of US$ 40 Million before this Court or 
c 
the DRT forthwith, pending disposal of the further recovery 
proceedings.' 
' 
The learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 seeks 
three weeks' time to file reply to the submission." 
19. Despite the aforesaid Order dated 11.01.2017 which took note 
D of the violation of the orders passed by the High Court ofKarnataka and 
though time was sought to file reply, nothing was filed in reply or rebuttal 
by Respondent No.3. 
20. When the aforesaid IA Nos.9-12 of2016 along with Contempt 
Petition Nos.421424c:>f2016 with application IA Nos.14of2016 seeking. 
E recall of the Order dated 25.07.2016, came up for hearing, Mr. Mukul 
Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India and Mr. Shyam Divan, 
learned senior advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners-banks
while 
Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior advocate appeared for Respondent 
No.3. It was submitted by the learned Attorney General that Respondent 
No.3 had made no honest disclosure and in fact there was a deliberate 
F 
attempt to flout the Order of this Court. In his submission, Respondent 
No.3 must first of all be directed to deposit US$ 40 million which he had 
transferred in violation of the Orders of the Courts, before he could be 
heard in the matter. Mr. Divan; learned senior counsel submitted that the 
orders dated 3.9.2013 and 13.11.2013 were clear and unambiguous. He 
G f\u:ther submitted that the breach on part of Respondent No.3 was willful 
and deliberate 11nd that it was a clear attempt in over- reacl}ing the 
Court and putting the amounts beyond the reach of the Court. 
. 
,_ 
. 
' 
Mr. Vaidyanathan, learned senior advocate on the other hand 
submitted that Respondent No.3 was not asked or called upon to disclose 
all transactions but to disclose the stams as it obtained on 31.03.2016 
H
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES 
505 
LTD; AND ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
and as such the disclosure by Respondent No.3 was consistent with the 
A 
tenor of the order passed by this Court. In his submission the amount of 
US$ 40 million was pursuant to Non-Compete agreement with Diageo . 
Pie ana was received after the orders passed by the High Court of 
Karnatakaon 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013. He further submitted that the 
width of those orders did not cover or include any moneys which the 
B 
respondents would receive in future and as such there was no violation 
of those orders at all. He relied upon the decision of this Court in I11dian 
Airports Employees' Union v. Ranjan Chatterjee and Anotlter2 and 
submitted that since the matter involved interpretation of the orders at 
3.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 it cannot be said that there was any w;\lful 
disobedience of the orders. He further submitted that the violation if C 
any, was that of the orders passed by the High Court of Kamataka and 
as such this Court ought not to take cognizance of such alleged violation 
inasmuch as it would deny Respondent No.3 the oppQrtunity to place the 
matter before the High Court. 
21. The orders passed by this court were clear and unambiguous D 
and Respondent No.3 was called upon to make complete disclosure of . 
his assets. Whether the assets to be so disclosed were covered by the 
personal guarantee given by Respondent No.3 or "not was immaterial. 
He was called upon
to make a complete. disdosure and was bound to 
comply with the directions. The assertion made by the petitioners-banks 
that the details of the bank account held in Edmond De Rothschild 3ank E 
were never disclosed by Respondent No.3 is correct. In fact, no details 
of any bank account with overseas banks were given by Respondent 
No.3. The violation by Respondent No.3 could not be termed as a mere 
infraction. The violation by Respondent No.3 regarding non-disclosure 
becomes more pronounced because it is this very account held in Edmand 
F 
De Rothschild Bank that was utilized to transmit funds to the tune of 
US$ 40 Million. 
22. We now turn to the alleged violation of orders dated.03 .09.2013 
and 13.11.2013 passed by the High Court ofKarnataka. It is not disputed 
that such orders were passed restraining the concerned respondents 
G 
including Respondent No.3 and that the orders were passed in 
proceedings arising from O.A. No.766 of2013 before DRT Bengaluru. 
The present proceedings before this court have also arisen from ihe 
very same O.A. No. 766 of2013. The orders ofrestraints passed by tlle 
'(1999) 2 sec 537 
H
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A High Court were therefore in the very same proceedings with which we 
are presently concerned. Said orders bound the concerned respondents 
including Respondent No.3 and restrained them from transferring, 
alienating, disposing or creating third party rights in respect of movable 
as well as immovable properties belonging to them till further orders in 
B the proceedings. A question has been raised by 
Mr. Vaidyanathan 
learned senior advocate whether the orders would be restricted only so 
far as the properties which were in the hands of the concerned 
respondents as on the date when those orders of restraint were passed. 
In other words, whether any properties which in future or subsequent to 
the Orders had come in the hands or control of the concerned respondent 
C would be covered by such orders or not. On plain reading of the Orders, 
in our view, whether the properties were in the hands of the concerned 
respondents on the date when the orders -Of restraint were passed by the 
High Court or had come in their hands or under their control at a later 
point in time, regardless of such qualification all properties whether 
D movable or immovable were governed by the orders of restraint. There 
is no ambiguity of any sort and the Orders of restraint are quite clear. 
Consequently, funds amounting to US$ 40 million which came to be 
under the control of and in the hands of Respondent No.3 were 
completely covered and governed
by said orders of restraint. 
23. The memo dated 28.06.2016 filed by Respondent No.IO in 
E said 0.A. No.766 of 2013 annexed, "Extract confirming payment of 
US$ (US Dollars) 40 Million to Defendant No.3 on 25.02.2016". It is 
thus beyond any doubt that the payment of US$ 40Million was received 
by Respondent No.3 on 25.02.2016. These facts are admitted by 
Respondent No.3 in Paragraph 3 of his "further counter affidavit". The 
F explanation that the funds now stand transferred in favour of tlie trusts 
over which Respondent No.3 has no control at all, in fact aggrm:ates the 
extent of violation. It is clear that the funds which were in control of 
Respondent No.3 have now been sought to be put beyond the reach of 
processes of court, which is reflective of the intent. 
G 
24. The applications moved by the petitioners-banks on 02 .03.2016 
H 
themselves had-made clear reference to the fact that as disclosed by 
respondent Nos. I 0 and 11 to London Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock 
Exchange respectively Respondent No. I 0 would pay to Respondent No.3 
a sum ofUS$75 million and accordingly petitioners-banks had moved 
four interlocutory applications for orders against respondent Nos. 10 and
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES 
507 
LTD. AND ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
11 for djsbursing said amount of US$ 75 million. The amount of US$ 40 A 
Million so . .received by Responcjent No.3 was therefore subject matter 
of the present controversy. The least that was expected of Respondent 
N o.3 was to disclose relevant facts pertaining to receipt and disbursement 
of US$ 40 million. The violation on that count is thus not only against the 
directions issued by this court but also against express mandate of orders B 
dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed in the proceeding'S in question. 
25. Having thus found that the actions on the part of Respondent 
No .3 in disbursing the amount of US$ 40 million Was against the text and 
·tenor of the orders passed by the High Court ofKamataka, the question 
'then arises whether this Court can take cognizance of such violation or 
should it leave it to be decided by the High Court ofKamataka itsdfin. C 
a properly instituted legal proceeding. 
26. In Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, 
Delhi v. State of Gujarat and others3, a question arose whether the 
power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution 
is confined to "the contempt of this Court" alone. Submissions adv2nced · D 
in that behalf were noted in paragraph 14 of the judgment which sets out 
the submission of the learned Attorney General: 
" ... The Supreme Court as the Apex Court is the protector and 
guardian
of justice throughout the land, therefore, it has a right 
and also a duty to protect the courts whose orders andjudgments 
E 
are amenable to correction, from commission of contempt against 
them." 
The subsequent paragraphs of the judgment namely paragraph 
26 onwards show that the contentions so advanced by the learned 
Attorney General were accepted by this Court. It is true that the 
F 
discussion was in the context of the contempt of a subordinate court. 
However, the nature of power exercisable by this Court was considered 
in the backdrop that this Court has supreme, appellate jurisdiction over 
all courts and tribunals in the country which is clear from the observations 
in paragraph 31 of the judgment. We must say that Mr. Vaidyanathan G . 
did not seriously contend to the contrary but his submission'was that if 
, the jurisdiction is so assumed and·cognizance is taken by this f'ourt, 
Respondent No.3 would Jose ·one opportunity of having the matter 
assessed at the level of the High Court. In our considered view, since 
'(1991) 4 sec 406 
H
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A we are dealing with the very same cause in which the orders of restraint 
were passed by the High Court and since it is coupled with the violation 
of orders of this Court as well, the matter can and ought to be dealt with 
by this Court. 
27. The record shows that by order dated 11.01.2017 the violation 
B of those orders for restraint passed by the High Court ofKarnataka was 
taken note of by this Court and the Counsel appearing for res;:iondent 
had sought time to file an appropriate reply. However, no such reply 
was filed. Respondent No.3 was thus put to clear notice at.out the 
violation of those orders of restraints passed by the High Court of 
Kamataka. As such, no prejudice has been caused or visited upon 
C Respondent No.3. 
28. We find that the allegations against Respondent No.3 of 
committing of contempt are on two counts, in that -
a) He is guilty of disobeying the Orders passed by this <::ourt in 
D 
not disclosing full particulars of the assets as was directed by this 
Court. 
b) He is guilty of violating the express Orders of Restraint passed 
by the High Court of Kamataka in the same Cause from which 
the present proceedings have arisen. , 
E 
Though the contempt on the second count is theoretically of the 
orders passed by the High Court ofKarnataka since those orders pertain 
. to the very same Cause and the actions on part of Respondent No.3 in 
not disclosing the account in question through which the
transfers were 
affected also fall with respect to contempt on first count, we proceed to 
F exercise our contempt jurisdiction even with regard to the second count. 
As stated above, Respondent No.3 was adequately put to notice and no 
prejudice has been caused as a result of such assumption of jurisdiction 
by this court. 
29. Having considered the entirety of the matter, we find that 
G Respondent No.3 is guilty of having committed contempt of court on 
both the counts. At this stage it must be stated that in terms of Rule 6 ( 1) 
of Rules to Regulate Proceeding for Contempt of Supreme Court 1975, 
Respondent No.3 was obliged and duty bound to appear in person in 
response to the notice issued by this Court in Contempt Petition. Instead, 
he chose to file application seeking recall of the orders issuing notice. 
H 
/
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES 
509 
LTD. AND ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
Having considered the matter, we see no reason to recall that order and A 
dismiss I.A. N.os.1 to 4 of 2016 preferred by Respondent No.3 in 
Contempt Petition Civil No.421-424 of 2016. Respondent No.3 is 
therefore duty bound to appear in person in the present cont<:mpt 
proceedings. 
30 .. Since Respondent No.3 has not filed any reply to the Contempt · B 
Petition nor did he appear in person, though we have found him guilty of 
having committed contempt of court, we deem it necessary to give him 
one more opportunity and also hear him on the proposed punishment. 
We therefore adjourn matter to 10.07.2017 for hearing Respondent No.3 
in person on matters in issue including one regarding the proposed 
punishment to be awarded to him for contempt of com1. The instant 
C 
contempt petitions and connected cases shall now be listed at 2 o'clock 
on 10.07.2017. Respondent No.3 may keep his affidavit ready to be 
tendered on the same day by stating mitigating circumstances, if any 
and any other submissions he chooses to advance. 
31. We direct the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,. D 
New Delhi to secure and ensure presence of Respondent No.3 before 
this Court on 10.07.2017. A copy of this Judgment be sent to the MiPistry 
of Home Affairs for compliance. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Matter adjourned . 
. .