(Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
State Bank of India and Ors. _________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. and Ors. ____________________ Respondent(s)
I.A. Nos. 9-12 & 13-16/2016 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6828-6831/2016, decided on October 25, 2016
With
I.A. Nos. 1-4/2016 In Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 421-424/2016 In SLP(C) No. 6828-6831/2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
I.A. Nos. 9-12 of 2016
1. By way of our Order dated 7.4.2016, the following directions were issued :
“Accordingly, they are granted time upto 21.04.2016 to file their response. In the response filed by the third respondent, he shall disclose the details of all his properties-movable, immovable, tangible, intangible, share holdings and any right, title or interest including beneficial interest and those held in fiduciary capacity, in private trusts, public trusts, companies, partnerships, limited liability partnerships, and/or any other entity/ies both in India and abroad etc. in any form whatsoever and also the rights, indicated above, in the name also of his wife and children, as on 31.03.2016.”
2. When the matter was taken up on 26.04.2016, a statement of assets, separately for overseas and India, was filed. In the statement of assets in India as on 31.03.2016, it was disclosed that Respondent No. 3, the alleged contemnor had Rs. 16,440/- as cash in hand. It was also disclosed that by way of deposits in Banks both Saving Bank Account, Current Account and Fixed Deposits, the alleged contemnor had an amount of Rs. 126,288,468/- which was under attachment by the Income-Tax Department. Whereas in the statement of assets overseas, it has been stated that towards “Investments + Cash equivalents” the alleged contemnor had US$ 5.260 Million. There was no reference regarding any bank account or cash in hand, unlike what was stated in the statement of assets in India.
3. Apparently in such circumstances, the applicants have filed I.A. Nos. 9-12/2016 praying for a direction to the alleged contemnor to make a complete and detailed disclosure of assets as per order dated 07.04.2016. At paragraph 15 to 17 of the applications, it has been stated as follows:
“15. 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 Respondent No. 3 to identify the location of the properties. Further, it is an undisputed fact that Respondent No. 3 had received a sum of USD 40 million from Respondent No. 10 pursuant to an Agreement dated 25.02.2016 entered into between Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 10.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that after disposal of the instant SLP, on 28.06.2016, Respondent No. 10 filed in the DRT a Memo along with two documents stating that the above mentioned amount of USD 40 million was paid to Respondent No. 3 on 25.02.2016.
17. A reading of the above documents clearly establishes that as on 26.04.2016 when Respondent No. 3 filed the Disclosure Statement in this Hon’ble Court, the Respondent No. 3 had already received the above mentioned amount of USD 40 million. However, there is no whisper of the above mentioned amount in the Disclose Statement.”
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In the said counter affidavit regarding US $ 40 Million, it is stated as follows :
“In the present I.A. filed by the Petitioners, it is contended that on the basis of a Memo filed by Diageo Plc (Respondent No. 10) before the DRT, the Petitioners learnt that an amount of US$ 40 million had been paid to Respondent No. 3 on 25th February, 2016. This is incorrect, since the RNS statement issued by Diageo Plc (Respondent No. 10) on 25th February, 2016 to the London Stock Exchange clearly records that “Diageo will pay $ 40 million of this amount immediately with the balance being payable in equal instalments over five years”. In fact, although in I.A. No. 1058 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner Banks before the DRT after referring to the pendency of I.A. No. 2598 of 2013 which sought disclosure of assets, inter alia, of Respondent No. 3/Alleged Contemnor, the Petitioner Banks sought “that the disclosure by the Defendant No. 3 be enlarged”, no interim relief in the present SLP in this regard was prayed for.”
5. It is pertinent to note that the counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has been filed after Respondent No. 3 had received notice in the contempt petition.
6. Having heard learned Attorney General appearing for the applicants and Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel 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 how the same has been dealt with up to date.
7. 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.
8. The affidavit, as above, shall be filed within four weeks.
9. Post on 24.11.2016.
———
