Come back to India if you want us to hear your case: Bombay High Court to Vijay Mallya

The Bombay High Court on Thursday took exception to Vijay Mallya trying to secure relief from court while avoiding Indian authorities by staying in United Kingdom as a fugitive [Vijay Mallya v. Union of India & Ors.]

A Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad said that if Mallya wants the Court to consider his petition challenging the validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act of 2018 (FEO Act), he should return to India.

“You have to come back. If you cannot come back, then we cannot hear this plea,” the bench warned. 

It was hearing Mallya’s plea challenging the FEO Act and proceedings declaring him a fugitive economic offender. ​

The Court’s remarks came in light of its December 23 order directing Mallya to file an affidavit stating when he intends to return to India from UK.

The Court had also asked him to make it clear that his challenge to the vires of the FEO Act would not be heard unless he first submitted to the court’s jurisdiction. 

Despite these directions, the bench today noted that Mallya had failed to submit on affidavit about his intention to return to India.  

"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 remarked.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (EWD), said Mallya had filed an affidavit claiming banks were wrong to demand money from him and was trying to turn the case into recovery proceedings. 

He argued that Mallya had challenged the 2018 Act only after becoming a fugitive and while India was at the fag end of extradition proceedings in London. He submitted that Mallya could come to India and argue everything, but he should not distrust Indian law and still claim equity.

“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,” Mehta said.   

The bench asked Mehta to submit the timelines and details which they would record in their order in the next hearing. 

Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Mallya, sought to rely on a judgment to argue that Mallya could be heard even without coming to India, given the nature of the statute. 

However, the Bench stressed that there was an existing order directing Mallya to indicate when he proposes to return. 

Since he has not been obeyed, it would now have to pass orders on non-compliance if he failed to do so on the next date as well.

“In fairness to you, we are not dismissing it; we are giving you another opportunity,” the Court told Mallya while adjourning the case to be heard next week.