Summary
Respondent No. 3 was found guilty of contempt for incomplete asset disclosure and transferring US$40 million contrary to restraint orders in the same recovery cause. The restraints included property received after their issuance. Punishment was not imposed in this judgment: a further personal hearing was directed, with the Home Ministry required to secure his presence.
Issues
- Whether nondisclosure and transfer of the funds breached the Court’s orders.
- Whether the Supreme Court should address related High Court restraint violations in the same cause.
Provisions considered
- Article 129, Constitution of IndiaThe Court exercised contempt jurisdiction over its disclosure orders and connected restraint violations in the same cause after adequate notice. (¶ 25–28)
- Rule 6(1), Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975The respondent was required to appear personally in response to contempt notice; recall was refused. (¶ 29–30)
Held
- The disclosure obligation covered all directed assets regardless of the personal guarantee’s coverage. Omitting overseas accounts, including the account used for the US$40 million transfer, breached the clear orders. (¶¶ 21, 24)
- The restraint orders plainly covered property subsequently received as well as existing property. Transferring the funds to children’s trusts put them beyond court processes and aggravated the violation. (¶ 22–24)
- The connected High Court orders arose in the same recovery cause and overlapped with nondisclosure before this Court. Adequate notice and opportunity to reply justified exercise of contempt jurisdiction on both counts. (¶ 25–28)
Result
Respondent No. 3 found guilty of contempt on both counts; recall applications dismissed. Matter adjourned to July 10, 2017 for personal hearing including punishment; Home Ministry directed to secure his presence.