The Bombay High Court expressed disapproval of Vijay Mallya’s attempts to seek judicial relief while remaining in the United Kingdom as a fugitive. It told him, “Return to India if you want us to hear your case today.”
The Bombay High Court expressed disapproval on Vijay Mallya’s attempts to seek judicial relief while remaining in the United Kingdom as a fugitive from Indian authorities.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad stated that if Mallya wishes for his petition challenging the legality of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act of 2018 (FEO Act) to be considered, he must return to India.
The bench emphasized,
“You have to come back. If you cannot come back, then we cannot hear this plea,”
The court was reviewing Mallya’s petition against the FEO Act and the proceedings that declared him a fugitive economic offender.
This stance followed a December 23 order, which instructed Mallya to provide an affidavit detailing when he plans to return to India from the UK.
The court also made it clear that it would not entertain his challenge to the FEO Act unless he first submitted to its jurisdiction.
Despite these directives, the bench noted that Mallya had not submitted any affidavit regarding his intentions to return to India.
The Court remarked,
“You are avoiding the process of the (Indian and UK) court, so you cannot take advantage of the present petition challenging the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act,”
The Court further marked,
“You have to come back. If you cannot come back, then we cannot hear this plea.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), pointed out that Mallya had filed an affidavit asserting that the banks were wrongfully demanding repayment, attempting to shift the case toward recovery proceedings.
He claimed that Mallya only challenged the 2018 Act after becoming a fugitive and while India was nearing the conclusion of the extradition process in London.
He further argued that Mallya could return to India to address all claims but should not distrust Indian law while seeking equitable relief.
Mehta stated,
“He can come and discuss everything that is mentioned in the affidavit. That I am ready to pay, not ready to pay, not liable to pay. But he cannot ‘not’ trust the law of this country and invoke equity jurisdiction,”
The bench requested Mehta to provide timelines and details to be included in their order during the next hearing.
Senior Advocate Amit Desai, representing Mallya, sought to reference a previous judgment to argue that Mallya could be heard even in his absence from India, given the nature of the statute.
ALSO READ: “Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi Fled India Due to Delayed Arrests”: Mumbai Court
However, the bench emphasized that there was a standing order requiring Mallya to indicate when he plans to return.
Given his noncompliance, the court indicated that it would need to take further action if he failed to respond by the next hearing.
The Court informed Mallya while adjourning the case until next week,
“In fairness to you, we are not dismissing it; we are giving you another opportunity,”
Case Title: Vijay Mallya v. Union of India & Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Vijay Mallya