Supreme Court fails to find crucial reply filed by Vijay Mallya in case records, to hear review plea on August 20

The Supreme Court today failed to find a reply filed by fugitive industrialist Vijay Mallya while hearing his review plea against its 2017 order holding him guilty of contempt of court for transferring $40 million to his children..The matter was heard by a Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ashok Bhushan..When the hearing began this morning, Justice Lalit asked Advocate Jai Munim, appearing for Mallya, where the reply filed in January 2019 was..Advocate Munim insisted that the reply must be attached to the case records after the intervention applications. However, the Court was unsuccessful in finding the reply.."We only decided to hear the review in open court because of the content of the reply."Justice UU Lalit.The Court has now asked Mallya's counsel to file the reply again, along with the filing memo, so that any error of it being misplaced is avoided. .The review plea will now be be heard on July 20. .Mallya is an accused in a bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving the now defunct Kingfisher Airlines. The plea in the Apex Court was filed by a consortium of banks..On May 9, 2017, the Supreme Court had directed the liquor baron to appear before it on July 10, after finding him guilty of contempt of court in a bank loan default case.Soon after this order, Mallya had filed a review petition in the Supreme Court..When the matter was heard earlier, the banks had alleged that Mallya concealed facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in “flagrant violation” of the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court..On June 19, the Court sought an explanation from its own Registry as to why the review petition filed by Mallya was not listed for the last three years..Breaking: Supreme Court summons Registry to explain why review plea filed by Vijay Mallya was not listed for 3 years.The Bench of Justices Lalit and Bhushan had noted in the last hearing that the review was filed within the period of limitation, but was still not listed for three years.It thus called for an explanation from the Supreme Court Registry as to why the case was not listed during this time. It has also asked for the names of the officers involved in the process.