Vijay Mallya imposed exemplary costs
NOTHING seems to be going right for the baron, Vijay Mallya these days. Yesterday the Supreme Court imposed costs on him in a FERA case.
Mallya was summoned by the Enforcement Directorate and since he failed to appear, a complaint was filed by the ED before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi under Section 56 of the FERA. This section provided for conviction for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. The trial court after considering the material on record summoned the appellant and framed charge against him under Section 56 of the Act. This was in 2000 and Mallya challenged the charge in the High Court, but without success and he was in the Supreme Court.
While this was going on, FERA was repealed and the Show Cause Notice against him was dropped.
In a letter to the ED, Mallya had submitted,
"As you will appreciate, I am the Chairman of several public Companies both in India as well as in the USA and, therefore, my schedule is finalized several months in advance. During the fiscal year end period, the problem only gets compounded.
I would, therefore, request you to excuse me from the personal appearance on November 26, 1999 as I will be out of India.
I am willing to fix a mutually convenient date to appear before you."
The Supreme Court did not appreciate this and observed,
From the tenor of the letter, it appears that it was not a case of mere seeking accommodation by the appellant but requiring date to be fixed by his convenience. Such stand by a person facing allegation of serious nature could hardly be appreciated. Obviously, the enormous money power makes him believe that the State should adjust its affairs to suit his commercial convenience.
In spite of the case against him being dropped, the Supreme Court held that the offence of not appearing on summons remained, observing, the appellant is still liable for the punishment notwithstanding the fact that the presence of the appellant was required by the adjudicating officer in connection with an enquiry into certain alleged violations of the various provisions of the Act, but at a subsequent stage the adjudicating officer opined that there was either insufficient or no material to proceed against the appellant for the alleged violations of the Act, is immaterial.
The Supreme Court found the entire approach adopted by Vijay Mallya to be a sheer abuse of the process of law. Any other view of the matter would only go to once again establishing the notorious truth stated by Anatole France that - "the law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread".
His appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs quantified at rupees ten lakhs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Service Authority.
After 15 years, his case is back in the trial court.