[2017] 3 S.C.R. 487 STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. A v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS. (I.A. Nos. 9-12 & 13-16 of2016) In B (SLP (C) Nos. 6828-6831 of2016) MAY 09, 2017 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.t Contempt of Court: 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 ofjurisdiction 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$75 million and accordingly petitioners-banks had moved four interlocutory 8 applications for orders against ·respondent Nos.10 and 11 for disbursing said amount of US$ 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. F 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 G . [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, 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 No.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. G 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 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:-"As a pre-condition to such steps on bona tides, it is submitted c 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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 H 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 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 D 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:- "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' G 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 . -H 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. G 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 H 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 3 S.C.R. A of the properties._ 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.

B 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 c 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 D 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 E 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 11 F settlement" as observed in the order dated 26' 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. 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 B 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:-

"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 F 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 G 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." H 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 81hNovember, 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: F NAME OF PARTY AMOUNT 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) H TOTAL US$ 39,999,993.99 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 3 S.C.R.

A 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 B 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:

"13. Notwithstanding the above, it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to filingof0.1\ No.766/2013 before the Hon'ble DRT, E· 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 F 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: G "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) H 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 the DRT forthwith, pending disposal of the further recovery c 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 acomplete. 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 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 H 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 No.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 . . .

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 487 STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. A v. KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS. (I.A. Nos. 9-12 & 13-16 of2016) In B (SLP (C) Nos. 6828-6831 of2016) MAY 09, 2017 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.t Contempt of Court: 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 ofjurisdiction 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$75 million and accordingly petitioners-banks had moved four interlocutory 8 applications for orders against ·respondent Nos.10 and 11 for disbursing said amount of US$ 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. F 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 G . [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, 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 No.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. G 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 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:-"As a pre-condition to such steps on bona tides, it is submitted c 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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 H 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 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 D 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:- "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' G 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 . -H 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. G 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 H 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 3 S.C.R. A of the properties._ 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.

B 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 c 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 D 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 E 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 11 F settlement" as observed in the order dated 26' 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. 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 B 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:-

"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 F 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 G 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." H 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 81hNovember, 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: F NAME OF PARTY AMOUNT 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) H TOTAL US$ 39,999,993.99 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 3 S.C.R.

A 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 B 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:

"13. Notwithstanding the above, it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to filingof0.1\ No.766/2013 before the Hon'ble DRT, E· 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 F 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: G "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) H 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 the DRT forthwith, pending disposal of the further recovery c 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 acomplete. 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 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 H 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 No.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 . . .