The High Court of Justice in London has held that fugitive economic offender Nirav Modi is personally liable to Bank of India more than $11 million (over ₹100 crore) under a 2013 personal guarantee in favour of the bank. [Bank of India v. Firestar Diamond FZE & Ors]

Deputy High Court Judge Simon Tinkler, sitting at the London Circuit Commercial Court in England and Wales, rejected Modi’s core defences based on Indian foreign exchange law, service of demand and interest calculations.

The judge explained that this was a simple question of whether Modi had been validly served with a demand for a liability he owed to the bank and whether the guarantee was enforceable. He answered both questions in the bank’s favour. 

He ruled that Bank of India was entitled to call on Modi’s personal guarantee after the Dubai entity in the Firestar group failed to repay facilities extended under an English‑law facility agreement.

The bank had lent $9.83 million to Dubai‑based Firestar Diamond FZE on interest and Modi had given a personal guarantee that he would repay monies to the bank if Firestar failed to do so. After set‑offs and recoveries from other sources, the unpaid principal was $4,105,189.34, a figure Modi accepted as the outstanding principal due from the borrower. 

The bank had already obtained a summary judgment in 2024 against Firestar Diamond FZE for $4,105,189.34 plus interest. Firestar Diamond FZE is now a dormant company and its Indian parent, Firestar International Pvt Ltd, has been declared insolvent. 

Modi argued that under the Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantees) Regulations 2000, the guarantee was void or unenforceable without prior approval from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

Both Indian law experts agreed that the regulation applied and that Indian resident Modi bore the obligation to obtain RBI permission. 

However, the bank’s expert, Sushmita Gandhi, testified that non‑compliance with the FEM Regulations was rectifiable and that the RBI could approve the guarantee retrospectively, so the document remained valid and binding. 

The judge accepted Gandhi’s evidence and held that the guarantee was enforceable.

“I am satisfied from his evidence and the document itself that the interest was properly payable by Firestar and that Mr Modi has guaranteed payment of it,” the judge held.

According to the Court, the core of the trial was the demand sent to Modi in October 2025 at his contractual address in Mumbai and to HMP Thameside, where he is detained pending extradition proceedings to India.

The bank stated that it served an initial demand on Modi in April 2018 and a further formal demand in October 2025, when Modi was in custody in an English prison pending extradition to India.

Modi argued that demands under the guarantee had to be sent by registered post and that ordinary post could not amount to valid service.

The Court found that the clauses of the personal guarantee permitted service by letter without any requirement of registered post and held that the evidence showed that the demand was properly posted. It further held that service at his contractual Mumbai address complied with the guarantee and that in any event, Modi in fact received the October 2025 demand in prison and was very well aware of its contents.

Modi also argued that the bank’s interest claim was flawed because of how it was calculated after September 30, 2024, when synthetic LIBOR (a benchmark rate based on banks’ estimated inter‑bank lending costs in London) stopped being published. He said that the later demands did not reflect any true liability owed by him.

The judge rejected this, noting that the loan was clearly repayable on demand.

The Court reasoned that the contract itself allowed the bank to move to a new benchmark, SOFR (a US dollar rate based on actual overnight transactions in US money markets) once LIBOR ceased.

The Court also criticised prisons HMP Thameside and HMP Pentonville for serious failures that disrupted the civil trial.

“That detention, or more precisely, the failure of the prison service to assist with the administration of justice or comply with court orders, caused a number of issues before and during the trial, and indeed caused the initial trial date to be postponed,” the judge observed.

Modi’s January 2026 trial date had to be vacated after his legal papers were not transferred when he was moved from Thameside to Pentonville despite court orders. Pentonville also failed twice to produce him in court.

The prison later issued a detailed statement acknowledging errors, apologising and setting out changes to training and processes.

[Read judgment]