In a major step forward, the Bombay High Court issued a firm warning addressing Vijay Mallya‘s plea challenging the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act of 2018. As the business remains in the United Kingdom while avoiding Indian authorities, a Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad said that the businessman would have to return to India if he wants the Court to consider his petition.
“You have to come back. If you cannot come back, then we cannot hear this plea,” the bench warned Thursday.
‘One last chance’ to Vijay Mallya: Bombay HC
Granting the fugitive businessman “one last chance” to clarify whether he intends to come back to India, the bench reiterated what it said in December. Even at the time, officials had asserted that his plea would only be considered if he returned to the country and submitted to the its jurisdiction.
Back then, Mallya was directed to file an affidavit clarifying his intentions to return to Indian from the UK. However, he failed to do so.
On Thursday, the bench again highlighted Mallya was deliberately evading authorities, which left no room for his plea countering the FEO Act validity and his status as a fugitive economic offender.
“You are avoiding the court process, so you cannot take benefit of the proceedings. In fairness to you, we are not dismissing it; we are giving you another opportunity,” the bench stated.
ED vs Mallya
Appearing on behalf of Mallya, Senior Advocate Amit Desai argued that the businessman’s plea could be heard even without coming to India, as per the Bar and Bench. The Bench ultimately turned the focus onto the existing order directing Mallya to disclose when he is planning to return.
On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stood in for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), as he said Mallya had filed an affidavit disputing banks’ claims, saying that they were wrong to demand money from him.
He also said that Mallya had challenged the FEO Act only after he was declared a fugitive. “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.
As of now, the Bombay High Court has adjourned the case to be heard next week.