A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The decision in Dr. Vijay Mallya v. State Bank of India and Others concerns the limited and well-settled scope of the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India, particularly when invoked in proceedings arising out of civil contempt. The review petitions were filed by Dr. Vijay Mallya against the judgment dated 09.05.2017, by which he was held guilty of contempt of court for non-disclosure of assets and violation of restraint orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka. The principal ground urged in review was that the Court had proceeded on an erroneous factual assumption that no reply had been filed by the contemnor to the response of the banks, whereas a reply dated 30.01.2017 was in fact on record.

The Court acknowledged the factual mistake but held that such an error did not amount to an “error apparent on the face of the record” so as to warrant review. The judgment clarifies that review proceedings cannot be used as a disguised appeal or an attempt to secure a rehearing on merits. The Court emphasized that unless the alleged error results in demonstrable prejudice affecting the outcome, the review jurisdiction remains unavailable. The ruling reinforces the doctrinal boundaries between appeal, review, and curative jurisdiction, and reiterates the binding nature of undertakings and restraint orders, especially in financial recovery proceedings involving public sector banks.

The judgment also underscores judicial intolerance towards asset dissipation and evasive conduct by judgment debtors, particularly where court orders and undertakings are willfully breached. The dismissal of the review petitions paved the way for continuation of contempt proceedings concerning punishment, reaffirming the authority of constitutional courts to enforce compliance with their orders.

Keywords: Review Jurisdiction, Civil Contempt, Error Apparent on Record, Asset Disclosure, Undertaking to Court

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arises from prolonged recovery proceedings initiated by a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India for recovery of massive public funds advanced to entities controlled by Dr. Vijay Mallya. The litigation history reflects a pattern of judicial restraint orders, undertakings before statutory tribunals, and repeated directions from constitutional courts aimed at preserving assets pending adjudication.

An original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, involved a claim exceeding ₹6203 crores, during which an oral undertaking was given by the borrower group not to alienate assets. This undertaking was subsequently fortified by injunction orders of the Karnataka High Court restraining transfer or disposal of movable and immovable properties.

Despite these restraints, significant funds amounting to USD 40 million were transferred out of disclosed and undisclosed accounts. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 09.05.2017, found such conduct to constitute wilful disobedience of court orders and suppression of material facts, thereby holding Dr. Vijay Mallya guilty of civil contempt.

The present review petitions sought reconsideration of that judgment, not on substantive innocence, but on a procedural error alleged to have vitiated the contempt finding. The background is crucial as it situates the review within a continuum of evasive conduct, repeated judicial indulgence, and persistent non-compliance with binding orders.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The consortium of banks initiated recovery proceedings before the DRT, Bengaluru seeking recovery of ₹6203,35,03,879.32. On 26.07.2013, Dr. Vijay Mallya and related respondents gave an oral undertaking before the Tribunal that they would not alienate or dispose of their properties.

Parallel proceedings before the High Court of Karnataka culminated in interim injunction orders dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013, restraining the respondents from creating third-party rights over their assets. These orders remained operative and were never stayed or modified.

In February 2016, a sum of USD 40 million, forming part of USD 75 million, was credited to the account of respondent no.3. Within days, the amount was transferred out, despite subsisting restraint orders. Crucially, the existence of this bank account was never disclosed to the Supreme Court, notwithstanding repeated directions for complete asset disclosure.

In contempt proceedings arising from SLP (C) Nos. 6828–6831 of 2016, the Court held that such non-disclosure and transfer constituted deliberate violation of court orders. The contemnor contended that disclosure obligations were limited temporally and that any breach related to High Court orders could not be examined by the Supreme Court. These submissions were rejected.

In the review petitions, it was asserted that a reply dated 30.01.2017 to the banks’ response had been filed but was erroneously ignored, leading to prejudice. The Court examined whether this omission warranted review.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether non-consideration of a reply already on record constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review?
ii. Whether review jurisdiction can be invoked to seek a re-hearing on merits of contempt findings?
iii. Whether violation of High Court orders can be examined in contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court?
iv. Whether absence of demonstrable prejudice negates the maintainability of review?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the petitioner submitted that the judgment under review proceeded on an incorrect factual premise that no reply was filed by the petitioner to the banks’ response. It was argued that the reply dated 30.01.2017 directly addressed the allegations and its non-consideration vitiated the reasoning process.

It was contended that the Court’s observations in paragraphs 19 and 27 materially influenced the contempt finding. The petitioner asserted that denial of consideration amounted to violation of principles of natural justice.

It was further urged that contempt jurisdiction should not have been exercised for alleged breach of High Court orders, and that such jurisdiction lay exclusively with the High Court concerned.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents submitted that the review petitions were an attempt to reopen concluded issues. It was argued that the reply dated 30.01.2017 did not dispute the existence of the oral undertaking or the injunction orders.

The respondents contended that even assuming a factual error, no prejudice was caused, as the reply added nothing substantive. The banks emphasized that review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used as an appellate forum.

They further submitted that suppression of assets and breach of undertakings justified invocation of contempt jurisdiction by the Supreme Court.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 137, Constitution of India
ii. Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
iii. Sections 2(b) and 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Court acknowledged that it had erred in recording that no reply was filed by the contemnor. However, it categorically held that such an error did not satisfy the statutory threshold of “error apparent on the face of the record”.

The Bench undertook a limited examination of the reply dated 30.01.2017 and found that it neither disputed the oral undertaking nor explained the violation of restraint orders. The Court emphasized that review jurisdiction cannot be expanded to reassess evidence or reconsider rejected submissions.

It was held that an attempt to secure a rehearing under the guise of review is impermissible. The Court reiterated that review lies only when the error is self-evident and materially alters the outcome.

Accordingly, the review petitions were dismissed, and directions were issued for continuation of contempt proceedings regarding punishment.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi lies in the reaffirmation that review jurisdiction is corrective, not substitutive. A factual error, unless resulting in manifest injustice, does not justify review. The Court held that absence of prejudice is fatal to review petitions.

The judgment clarifies that contempt findings based on independent violations cannot be reopened merely due to ancillary factual inaccuracies.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that repeated non-disclosure of assets undermines judicial authority. It remarked that undertakings given to courts are not empty formalities but binding assurances carrying legal consequences.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.
ii. Error must be apparent and self-evident.
iii. Demonstrable prejudice is mandatory.
iv. Contempt jurisdiction extends to enforcement of binding orders irrespective of forum.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred
i. Dr. Vijay Mallya v. State Bank of India, [2020] 13 SCR 658

b) Important Statutes Referred
i. Constitution of India
ii. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
iii. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971