Vijay Mallya, who is staying abroad for the last four years, is not willing to return to India to face charges. Mallya is wanted in India to face charges of financial offenses amounting to Rs 9,000 crore borrowed by his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) from several Indian banks.
The Indian government wants to bring back the 64-year-old embattled businessman, who has denied wrongdoing in recent months and has said that he intends to repay those loans.
"It is a significant achievement in continuing the war against economic fugitives who have been managing to stay away from judicial process in the country. It also validates the painstaking & meticulous investigation done by us," Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said after UK Court's judgement.
Mallya had tweeted on March 31, saying, "I have made repeated offers to pay 100 percent of the amount borrowed by KFA to the Banks. Neither are Banks willing to take the money and neither is the ED willing to release their attachments which they did at the behest of the Banks. I wish the FM would listen in this time of crisis."
In April 2017, Mallya was arrested in London on India's request for extradition and was granted bail shortly after. He was again arrested in London in October that same year, following an Enforcement Directorate (ED) affidavit.
The flashy businessman was ordered to be extradited to India back in December 2018 on a request from the Indian government that has accused him of “knowingly misrepresenting” the profitability of his companies when he sought bank loans in 2009.
WATCH REPORT | UK High Court Dismisses Vijay Mallya's Petition Against Extradition
In their 46-page judgment, Justice Irwin and Justice Laing said: “(In) our judgment, the SDJ (senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot) was entitled to find that there was a prima facie case of fraud by false representation…(We) reject the submission that the SDJ was wrong to find a prima facie case of conspiracy to defraud”.
The judges rejected the six grounds on which Mallya’s lawyer, Claire Montgomery, had appealed, and upheld Arbuthnot’s judgment.