Liquor baron Vijay Mallya on Tuesday, 11 February, appeared before the Royal Courts of Justice in London for his appeal against extradition to India to face fraud and money laundering charges amounting to Rs 9,000 crores, where his lawyers claimed "multiple errors" in a magistrates' court's order.
The 64-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss, who remains on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April 2017, avoided the usual scrum of reporters at the court entrance and went in with his lawyers separately.
“I’m just here to listen,” he said, when asked for a comment.
Justice Stephen Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing were told by Mallya's barrister that Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot's verdict in favour of extradition in December 2018 was flawed and also questioned the admissibility of some witness statements submitted by the Indian government.
Clare Montgomery opened her arguments to try and establish that Mallya had no fraudulent intentions when he sought bank loans for his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines because he is no "fly by night figure but an immensely wealthy man” who was not running any sort of “ponzi scheme” but a reputable airline, which fell into economic misfortune along with other Indian airlines.
In what she described as a "very dense case", which has proved extraordinarily difficult to manage as there are “any number of rabbit holes” to go down, Montgomery said:
“She (Arbuthnot) did not look at all of the evidence because if she had, she would not have fallen into the multiple errors that permeate her judgment.”
The hearing is scheduled for three days with Mallya's barrister to lay out her oral arguments, with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on behalf of the Indian government set to counter on Wednesday.
Representatives from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were present in court as Montgomery once again sought to raise questions over whether the CBI behaved “properly in bringing charges” against Mallya under former Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who she said may have been guilty of “misconduct”.
Judge Irwin intervened to question whether she could re-enter these pervious claims, which had already been rejected at the magistrates’ court level and sought clarifications on where the law may have been wrongly applied by the Chief Magistrate.
Mallya had received permission to appeal against his extradition order signed off by former UK home secretary Sajid Javid last February only on one ground, which challenges the Indian government's prima facie case against him of fraudulent intentions in acquiring bank loans.
‘Media Interest in Mallya Case Would Ensure Justice’: UK HC
The High Court has already accepted Judge Arbuthnot's conclusions on all other aspects of the extradition case, including so-called “extraneous circumstances” of Mallya being pursued by the Indian authorities for political reasons of a clash between the ruling BJP and Opposition Congress party.
Some of the other grounds invoked in last year's hearing claimed Mallya would not receive a fair trial in India, which was also dismissed as the judges upheld Arbuthnot's ruling on the matter that the wide media interest in the Mallya case would ensure justice.
His legal team had also sought to challenge the Indian government’s assurances that Mallya would be held in safe prison conditions at Barrack 12 in Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai, which was dismissed by the High Court.
At the end of a year-long extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London in December 2018, Judge Arbuthnot had found “clear evidence of dispersal and misapplication of the loan funds” and accepted a prima facie case of fraud and a conspiracy to launder money against Mallya, as presented by the CPS on behalf of the Indian government.
Mallya remains on bail involving a bail bond worth 650,000 GBP and other restrictions on his travel while he contests that ruling.
(This story has been published in a partnership with PTI)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)