UK Court Orders Extradition Of Vijay Mallya [Read Judgment]
- Author: Joey Payne Dec 11, 2018,
Dec 11, 2018, 8:32
In a series of tweets, Mallya said that he contributed thousands of crores to the State exchequers through his alcoholic beverage group and now defunct Kingfisher Airlines and requested banks to accept his offer.
Mallya, 62, strongly rejects any... The State Secretary will finally sign the extradition order. Further it was said that Mallya had deliberately not repaid the amount, outstanding dues payable by Kingfisher Airlines to the consortium of banks.
A court had blocked the $75m payment in March 2016 after creditors demanded it be used to settle Mr Mallya's outstanding debts, but $40m had already been transferred.
The flamboyant businessman's fall from grace is being avidly tracked in India.
A team led by Central Bureau of Investigation Joint Director A. Sai Manohar was present at the Court when the judgment was pronounced.
The Central Bank of India opened a criminal investigation into Mallya in 2015, and the Metropolitan police's extradition unit arrested him in April a year ago on behalf of the Indian authorities.
Explaining why he could not pay back banks the money he borrowed, Mallya said that his Kingfisher Airlines was "fabulous" and faced the highest ever crude prices of Dollars 140/barrel.
Mallya has been fighting to remain in Britain but judge Emma Arbuthnot said he had misrepresented how loans received from banks would be used and therefore had a case to answer. Mallya is now expected to approach a higher court. "Being held as guarantor is not fraud", said the fugitive tycoon, who is on bail since April 2018.
The refurbishing of the cell came in the wake of Mallya putting up a defence in the London court in which he had said that the extradition needs to be blocked as the conductions in the jails are bad.
The court accepted the Indian government's contention that because Mallya has such a "high profile", his trial in India will be under great scrutiny and he will be able to raise with the court any overly prejudicial publicity.