No Hearing Unless You Return, Bombay HC Tells Vijay Mallya

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday ruled that businessman Vijay Mallya must return to India if he wants the court to consider his petition challenging the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA). The bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, declared that the legal challenge would not be heard unless Mallya first invoked the court’s jurisdiction.

The court observed that Mallya appeared to be evading the judicial process and noted that a person who deliberately evades trial cannot seek just relief. While the bench expressed its inclination to note that Mallya had evaded the court, it refrained from immediately dismissing the petition. Instead, the judges postponed the case until February 18, giving him a final opportunity to make clear whether he intends to return.

“We may need to note that you have evaded the court process. You cannot benefit from a trial. To be fair, we are not dismissing the petition, we are giving you another opportunity,” the court said.

This decision follows a previous court directive requiring Mallya to submit a compliance statement detailing his comeback plans; The delegation stated that this decision has not yet been followed.

Senior Advocate Amit Desai, representing Mallya, argued that his client could be heard without being physically present in India. However, the Board emphasized that since the current decision regarding the return plan was not taken into account, it may have to make decisions regarding non-compliance if the situation does not change by the next hearing. “In fairness, we are not denying the petition; we are giving you another opportunity,” the court said.

Attorney General Tushar Mehta, representing the Enforcement Directorate, argued that Mallya challenged the validity of the FEOA only after he was declared a fugitive and while extradition proceedings were ongoing in London. Mr. Mehta argued that Mallya was free to return to India to present his claims on liability, but also that he could not rely on Indian law in seeking relief from Indian courts. The attorney general also claimed that Mallya’s recent court filings were an attempt to shift the focus of the case from the fugitive to bank bailouts.