HC tells Mallya to appear before it on Nov 24

THE High Court on Thursday ordered businessman Vijay Mallya, who is now residing in London, to be present in person before it on November 24 for charges to be framed against him under Contempt of Cour

BENGALURU: THE High Court on Thursday ordered businessman Vijay Mallya, who is now residing in London, to be present in person before it on November 24 for charges to be framed against him under Contempt of Courts Act.

A division bench of Justices Jayant Patel and Arvind Kumar issued the directive saying that prima facie, charges can be framed against Mallya for allegedly breaching his oral undertaking given before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Benglauru Bench, in 2013.

Mallya had on July 26, 2013, orally undertaken before the tribunal that he will not transfer, alienate or otherwise deal in his assets till the next date of hearing. He reiterated his undertaking during four hearings in August 2013, a consortium of banks contended before the High Court.

Taking note of this, the bench asked Mallya’s counsel to communicate its order to him, saying that his personal presence is essential to frame charges. The order came in response to the contempt petition filed by the consortium of banks, led by State Bank of India, in 2014 in connection with the Kingfisher Airlines case.

Death sentence of Umesh Reddy stayed

The High Court on Thursday stayed the execution of the death penalty imposed on serial rapist B A Umesh Reddy. Passing an interim order to this effect, a division bench of Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice R B Budihal granted 10 days to the state and Union governments to file objections, if any, to Reddy’s petition.

Reddy approached the High Court seeking commutation of the death penalty on the grounds of delay in disposal of his mercy petition by the President. In his petition,

Reddy cited “avoidable and excessive delay” of over two years in the disposal of his mercy petition and consequent mental illness.  During the hearing, Reddy’s counsel argued that the case records show that he was kept in solitary confinement from the date of judgment by the the trial court during which he developed serious mental illness.

“Each of these facts are relevant for deciding the mercy petition, and yet none of these facts were communicated to the President or to the Governor. This has vitiated their decision to reject the mercy petition,” the counsel argued.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com