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 wishes the court to consider his petition challenging the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA). A Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad clarified that the legal challenge would not be heard unless Mallya first submits to the court’s jurisdiction.

The court observed that Mallya appears to be evading the judicial process and noted that a person deliberately avoiding proceedings cannot seek equitable relief. While the Bench expressed an inclination to record that Mallya is avoiding the court, it refrained from dismissing the petition immediately. Instead, the judges granted him a final opportunity to state clearly whether he intends to return, adjourning the matter until February 18.

“We may have to record that you are avoiding the process of the court. You cannot take benefit of the proceedings. In all fairness to you, we are not dismissing the petition but giving you another opportunity,” the court said.

This decision follows a previous court directive requiring Mallya to file a compliance affidavit detailing his return plans, an order the bench noted has not yet been followed.

Senior Advocate Amit Desai, representing Mallya, argued that his client can be heard without being physically present in India. However, the Bench emphasised that since the existing order for a return schedule was ignored, it may have to pass orders regarding non-compliance if the status remains unchanged by the next hearing. “In fairness to you, we are not dismissing the petition; we are giving you another opportunity,” the Court said.

Representing the Enforcement Directorate, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Mallya only challenged the validity of the FEOA after being declared a fugitive and while extradition proceedings in London were well underway. Mr. Mehta contended that Mallya is free to return to India to present his arguments on liability but cannot distrust Indian law while simultaneously seeking relief from its courts. The Solicitor General further alleged that Mallya’s recent court filings were an attempt to shift the focus of the case away from the fugitive designation and toward bank recovery proceedings.