By Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Fugitive Vijay Mallya’s advocate on Thursday told the Supreme Court that he doesn’t wish to continue as his counsel since Mallya was ‘untraceable’ and ‘unresponsive’. Acceding to counsel’s request, a bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli asked his counsel to supply to court’s registry, Mallya’s email ID and London address to be supplied within one week.
The lawyer had sought discharge in a plea preferred by former liquor baron seeking a stay on the confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives. In his plea he had requested for directing to not attach any properties other than that of Kingfisher airlines. The plea had come up for hearing nearly four months after the Supreme Court had awarded him four months jail sentence the business in a contempt case and had also imposed fine of Rs 2,000 on him. Mallay is the prime accused in the 9000 crore bank loan case that had involved his defunct Kingfisher airline.
According to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a person may be punished with simple imprisonment of up to six months, or with a fine up to Rs 2,000, or both for contempt of court. The top court had directed that Mallya and the beneficiaries under the said transactions relating to USD 40 million shall be bound to deposit the amount received along with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum with the recovery officer concerned within four weeks.
It had said in case the amount is not deposited, the recovery officer concerned shall be entitled to take appropriate proceedings for recovery of money and the Government of India and all agencies concerned shall extend assistance and complete cooperation. It said in case the fine amount of Rs 2,000 is not deposited within the stipulated time, Mallya shall undergo a further sentence of two months.
Also in top court
Rajiv assassination: Hearing on Nov. 11The SC on Thursday posted the pleas preferred by convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, RP Ravichandran & Nalini seeking premature release for November 11, 2022. Supporting the pleas filed by the convicts, TN government had told the court that state government’s decision to commute sentences is binding on the Governor. The state government on September 9, 2018 had passed a resolution recommending to the Governor for remission of the life sentences of S Nalini and others.
I-T dept gets 2 wks to respond to Karti plea The Supreme Court on Thursday granted two weeks time to Income Tax Department to respond to a plea by Congress MP Karti P. Chidambaram and his wife Srinidhi Chidambaram in the 2018 tax evasion case. A bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi in their order said, “ASG SV Raju for respondent prays for and is granted two weeks to respond. List in December first week.”
‘Extra-judicial confession can’t be sole proof’ The Supreme Court on Thursday said when an extra-judicial confession is not duly proved or corroborated by any other reliable evidence, the conviction could not be based solely on such “weak piece” of evidence. The apex court set aside the July 2016 judgement of the Madras High Court which had confirmed the verdict of a trial court convicting and awarding life term to five persons in a murder case.
NEW DELHI: Fugitive Vijay Mallya’s advocate on Thursday told the Supreme Court that he doesn’t wish to continue as his counsel since Mallya was ‘untraceable’ and ‘unresponsive’. Acceding to counsel’s request, a bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli asked his counsel to supply to court’s registry, Mallya’s email ID and London address to be supplied within one week.
The lawyer had sought discharge in a plea preferred by former liquor baron seeking a stay on the confiscation of properties owned by him and his relatives. In his plea he had requested for directing to not attach any properties other than that of Kingfisher airlines. The plea had come up for hearing nearly four months after the Supreme Court had awarded him four months jail sentence the business in a contempt case and had also imposed fine of Rs 2,000 on him. Mallay is the prime accused in the 9000 crore bank loan case that had involved his defunct Kingfisher airline.
According to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a person may be punished with simple imprisonment of up to six months, or with a fine up to Rs 2,000, or both for contempt of court. The top court had directed that Mallya and the beneficiaries under the said transactions relating to USD 40 million shall be bound to deposit the amount received along with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum with the recovery officer concerned within four weeks.
It had said in case the amount is not deposited, the recovery officer concerned shall be entitled to take appropriate proceedings for recovery of money and the Government of India and all agencies concerned shall extend assistance and complete cooperation. It said in case the fine amount of Rs 2,000 is not deposited within the stipulated time, Mallya shall undergo a further sentence of two months.
Also in top court
Rajiv assassination: Hearing on Nov. 11
The SC on Thursday posted the pleas preferred by convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, RP Ravichandran & Nalini seeking premature release for November 11, 2022. Supporting the pleas filed by the convicts, TN government had told the court that state government’s decision to commute sentences is binding on the Governor. The state government on September 9, 2018 had passed a resolution recommending to the Governor for remission of the life sentences of S Nalini and others.
I-T dept gets 2 wks to respond to Karti plea
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted two weeks time to Income Tax Department to respond to a plea by Congress MP Karti P. Chidambaram and his wife Srinidhi Chidambaram in the 2018 tax evasion case. A bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi in their order said, “ASG SV Raju for respondent prays for and is granted two weeks to respond. List in December first week.”
‘Extra-judicial confession can’t be sole proof’
The Supreme Court on Thursday said when an extra-judicial confession is not duly proved or corroborated by any other reliable evidence, the conviction could not be based solely on such “weak piece” of evidence. The apex court set aside the July 2016 judgement of the Madras High Court which had confirmed the verdict of a trial court convicting and awarding life term to five persons in a murder case.
