Vijay Mallya loses U.K. High Court appeal

21/04/2020

“Now, Mr. Mallya has 14 days to file an application in the High Court for permission to appeal in the Supreme Court, which takes up constitutional matters and issues of larger public interest. We believe that it will be turned down in all likelihood. Once he exhausts all legal avenues, we will have 28 days to bring him back,” said a senior Enforcement Directorate official.

As flight operations are hit globally due to COVID-19, in case his extradition is cleared by the final authority during the lockdown period, he may be brought back on board any special aircraft, including Air India, the official said.

Meticulous probe

The Central Bureau of Investigation said the decision was a result of meticulous probe and would strengthen the “war” against the economic offenders who evaded judicial proceedings in India.

The U.K. High Court, in its 43-page judgment, discussed threadbare Mr. Mallya’s submissions against the lower court order, holding that on the first impression the charges made against him by the Indian probe agencies stood.

The agencies have alleged that Mr. Mallya, between September 1, 2009, and January 24, 2017, conspired with A. Ragunathan, S. Borkar, A. Nadkami, A. Shah, Y. Agarwal, B. Batra, O. Bundellu, S. Srinivasan, R. Sridhar and others to cheat those who might deposit funds with the IDBI Bank. This was done “by dishonestly causing and permitting the bank to sanction and disburse loans” to Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) in the order of (a) ₹1,500 million on October 7, 2009, (b) ₹2,000 million on November 4, 2009, and (c) ₹7,500 million on November 27, 2009, with the intention not to repay them.

False information

The alleged conspiracy was executed by supplying to the bank false information on Kingfisher’s profitability and the value and/or availability of securities to be relied upon. The funds so raised were diverted and laundered. The High Court, which had heard the case in February, also turned down the appellant’s contention that the lower court had erred in law in its approach to the prima facie case test and the admissibility of the respondent’s evidence.