ALSO READExpedite proceedings to declare businesswoman proclaimed Will take all steps to get absconding businesswoman back: SC SC seeks views on provision for government residence for ex-CMs Govt accomodations: SC poser to Centre and states No third party can interfere in the marriage of consenting adults: SC
The Supreme Court today refused to release the attached properties of the mother-in-law of an absconding businesswoman, who is currently residing in London, saying she should first bring her daughter-in-law back to India.
The top court asked the 75-years-old woman to first bring her daughter-in-law Ritika Awasty, a promoter of Bush Foods Overseas Pvt Ltd, back to India and then it would consider releasing her properties.
"We are not going to release the attached properties unless you bring her back. Ask her to come back to India and we will release the properties," a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha said.
He urged the court to release her residential property which was attached on the order of the apex court on December 15 last year to compel Awasty's return from London.
The bench, however, posted the matter for further hearing on April 5.
On January 29, the apex court had said that Awasty, will have to face the "wrath of law" and it will take "all possible steps" to get her back.
Awasty, is facing trial in Uttar Pradesh on charges of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust and has been evading arrest after she was allowed by the top court to go to London.
The court had said it will leave no stone unturned to bring back the businesswoman, stressing she cannot be allowed to get away after breaching the court's order.
The court, had said, "You will have to get her back. Speak to her and ask her to come back. We can modify our order but only after she comes back. Ask her to behave like a good daughter-in-law."
On December 15 last year, the apex court had asked the Centre and Uttar Pradesh government to expeditiously complete proceedings to declare the businesswoman a proclaimed offender and attach her properties in India.
It had said since her bail had been cancelled by the court after she failed to return to India from the United Kingdom, the proceedings to declare her a proclaimed offender should be completed expeditiously.
Awasty was allowed by the apex court to travel to London to see her husband and daughter in January 2016 after giving an undertaking that she will return by March 31, 2016.
However, the period was later extended till May 31, 2016, but she did not return from London which compelled the apex court to forfeit her security of Rs 86 lakh, cancel her bail and initiate contempt proceedings.
Awasty had challenged the Allahabad High Court order refusing to quash the FIR lodged against her but was granted bail and allowed to travel abroad by the apex court on an undertaking for looking after her husband and daughter in London.
The court had also revoked her passport after she failed to return to India by May 31, 2016.
On September 12, the court had directed the Centre to take appropriate steps within two weeks thereafter for extradition with the Crown Prosecution Services and sought details of her properties in India.
It had also asked the Centre to submit the income tax returns of Awasty and her husband.
On August 29, 2016, the apex court had said that it was "prima facie satisfied" that Awasty had "committed contempt of this court by breaching the directions issued by the court, as also, violating the undertaking given to this court".
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)