SC says can’t sentence Mallya in his absence; Centre hints can’t extradite him before Jan 2018 | india-news | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 16, 2017-Saturday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

SC says can’t sentence Mallya in his absence; Centre hints can’t extradite him before Jan 2018

The Supreme Court was expected to sentence liquor baron Vijay Mallya in a contempt of court case.

india Updated: Jul 14, 2017 22:11 IST
Bhadra Sinha
A file photo of liquor baron Vijay Mallya outside Westminster Magistrates in central London in June.
A file photo of liquor baron Vijay Mallya outside Westminster Magistrates in central London in June.(Reuters)

The Supreme Court told the Centre on Friday it won’t be able to sentence liquor baron Vijay Mallya in a contempt case in his absence.

In response, the government said the process to extradite Mallya, wanted for defaulting on bank loan repayments worth Rs 9,000 crore, has been initiated and proceedings in the British Crown Court will start by December 4, 2017.

Talking to HT, attorney general KK Venugopal said, “Hopefully we should get him back by January 2018.”

In May, India had asked the UK to expedite the request for extradition of Mallya and other Indian fugitives. Most of Mallya’s loans are tied to his Kingfisher Airlines, which was grounded in 2012.

The Supreme Court, in May, found Mallya guilty of contempt and asked him to appear before it on July 10. A bench of justices AK Goel and UU Lalit said the 61-year-old businessman had failed to submit details of all his assets, upholding a plea by a consortium of banks to which he owes more than Rs 9,000 crore.

The banks had moved the court after Mallya transferred $40 million he received from London-based liquor major Diageo Plc in February 2016 to his three children instead of repaying the loan.

The money was received towards the $75-million debt settlement with Diageo following his resignation as chairman of United Spirits Ltd.

Mallya hid details of his transaction with Diageo when he filed an affidavit in the court sharing details of all his movable and immovable assets, the court said. He also failed to obey court’s order to appear before it.