Special court rejects Mallya’s plea to stay ED proceedings

Assets seizure only after he gets ‘fugitive economic offender’ tag

MUMBAI: A special court on Tuesday refused liquor baron Vijay Mallya’s plea to stay the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) proceedings to declare him a fugitive economic offender and confiscate his properties, both in India and abroad.

Mallya’s counsel Amit Desai pleaded to the court, set up under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), to stay the ED’S proceedings against his client because a Delhi appellate tribunal under PMLA, on October 10, had ordered status quo be maintained on Mallya’s properties until the next hearing on November 26. Desai contended the court cannot proceed with the ED’S application until this hearing was completed.

The special court, however, said the tribunal dealt only with Mallya’s properties and the question of their confiscation would arise only after Mallya was declared guilty under section 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. The court, while passing its order, observed the section has to be read in two parts: first, declaring the person as a fugitive, and then the confiscation of his assets.

The ED has so far attached movable and immovable properties having present market value of ₹12,503 crore belonging to Vijay Mallya and his other subsidiaries under Prevention of Money Laundering Act .

“I would hear the plea in two parts. I would hear both the parties first on the point if Mallya can be declared a fugitive. The subject of the properties would be heard only after deciding the first part,” the bench, headed by justice MS Azmi observed. “If the defence succeeds in their claim that he is not a fugitive, the question of confiscation would not arrive; vice-versa if Mallya is declared as fugitive, the court would hear all the parties on the aspect of which properties can be confiscated.”

After the order, Desai sought time to challenge it before the Bombay high court. The court has now scheduled a hearing on November 22.

MALLYA’S COUNSEL CONTENDED THE COURT CANNOT PROCEED WITH THE ED’S APPLICATION UNTIL HIS HEARING AT A TRIBUNAL WAS COMPLETED