Mallya, who left India in March 2016, is accused of defaulting on multiple loan repayments amounting to several thousand crores. He was declared a Fugitive Economic Offender in January 2019 by a special court hearing cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Following the declaration, extradition proceedings against him were initiated.
Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya on Wednesday informed the Bombay High Court that he is unable to provide a definite timeline for his return to India as his passport has been revoked and he is barred from leaving England and Wales under orders passed by courts in the United Kingdom.
Mallya made the submission through his counsel Amit Desai before a bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad. The statement was filed in response to the court’s earlier direction asking him to clarify whether he intended to return to India to face trial while pursuing his petitions challenging the order declaring him a fugitive economic offender and the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act.
Mallya, who left India in March 2016, is accused of defaulting on multiple loan repayments amounting to several thousand crores. He was declared a Fugitive Economic Offender in January 2019 by a special court hearing cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Following the declaration, extradition proceedings against him were initiated.
In his statement, Mallya said he was unable to travel due to restrictions imposed by UK courts.
“Pursuant to orders passed by the Courts in England, the petitioner is not permitted to leave or attempt to leave England and Wales or apply for or be in possession of any international travel document. In any event, the Petitioner is unable to precisely state when he will return to India,” the statement said.
Desai further submitted that Mallya’s presence in India was not necessary for the High Court to hear his petitions challenging the fugitive offender tag and the provisions of the Act.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that Mallya had invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court, which is equitable in nature. He submitted that a person who does not comply with the law cannot seek discretionary relief from the court.
