Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt of court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India.

New Delhi, May 9: The Supreme Court says it has held Vijay Mallya blameworthy for the scorn of court on two grounds and guides him to show up before it on July 10.

Mallya, 61, who fled from India a year ago, owes over Rs 9000 crore to the banks.

At present, Mallya is living in the United Kingdom and confronting removal procedures. The specialist is needed in India for asserted advance default and illegal tax avoidance cases.

The consortium of banks had argued for disdain procedures against Mallya in the summit court after the representative got $40 million from British firm Diageo Plc in February a year ago yet exchanged the reserve to his kids, rather than reimbursing the credit.

The absconding businessman was arrested by Scotland Yard last month on fraud allegations, which triggered his extradition process in the British courts. However, Mallya was released on bail as he assured the court to abide by all conditions associated with extradition proceedings, including surrendering his passport.

Despite the extradition treaty signed in 1992 between India and the UK, only one successful extradition has taken place – Samirbhai Vinubhai Patel, who was sent back to India in October 2016 to face trial over his involvement in the post-Godhra riots of 2002, the report says.

Last February, India gave a formal extradition request for Mallya through a note verbale. Meanwhile, a joint team of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) reached London on Tuesday.

Last month, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) informed that Mallya’s extradition has been stratified by the Secretary of State of the U.K. Government and added that a warrant would soon be released against him.

The 61-year-old Mallya, who has been living in Britain since last year, was arrested by the Scotland Yard last month on the extradition request of India.

The removal procedure from the UK includes various strides, including a choice by the judge on regardless of whether to issue a warrant of capture.

The “needed” individual has the privilege to interest higher courts against any choice as far as possible up to the Supreme Court.

Under the law, the British secretary of state may just consider four issues when choosing whether to arrange a man’s removal — whether the individual is at danger of capital punishment, regardless of whether unique courses of action are set up, whether the individual concerned has already been removed from another nation to the UK and the assent of that nation to his ahead removal is required and whether the individual has beforehand been exchanged to the UK by the International Criminal Court.