The Royal Court of Justice in London passed an order allowing Vijay Mallya to appeal against his extradition order to India. The two judge bench court granted relief to Mallya after a four hours long hearing.
The court granted the relief on grounds that the applicant places the potential difficulty as it is not function of appellant court to repeat fact finding exercise undertaken by a lower court after hearing evidence. The court said that the evidence was “high volume, it is important to point material error”.
The court also perused through the allegations against Vijay Mallya relates to loans given by IDBI of INR₹ 150 crore on October 7, 2009 and INR₹ 750 core which included INR₹ 200 crore advances.
The court rejected the argument of Vijay Mallya that he will not get fair trial in India.
Vijay Mallya’s counsel pointed out before the court that “the banks were fully aware of his financial situation and the position in with KFA (Kingfisher Airlines) was in and knew the lendings would be used for all sorts of things.”
His lawyer also argued that the documents provided in favour of Vijay Mallya have not been considered properly.
Mallya was represented by lawyer Claire Montgomery and Anand Doobay who are also defending Nirav Modi.
Before entering the court Mr. Mallya told media personnels, “I have a case which will be represented. The family feels positive, they have gone through a lot. My only request to Indian Government is that I don’t want any concession, money is there, you can take back 100 percent money.”
The UK High Court had rejected a plea filed by Vijay Mallya against his extradition order on the 5th of April. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court had already ordered the extradition of Vijay Mallya which was accepted by the UK Home Office.
A Special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Mumbai had branded Vijay Mallya as the first fugitive economic offender following an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate.
Enforcement Directorate revealed that Vijay Mallya’s KAL had fraudulently utilised significant portions of loan funds to service the existing debt. Substantial amounts were remitted outside India on the pretext of payment of lease, rentals, etc.
Source : Various