Court: Mallya had no intention to return
RULING The court had discarded all pleas of the fugitive businessman
MUMBAI: Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya’s conduct suggests he had no intention of returning to India, said the judgment of the special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court, which had declared him as a fugitive economic offender (FEO) on January 5. The 55-page order was signed on Saturday.
Special judge MS Azmi, who delivered the judgment, held that Mallya’s claim of one-time repayment of dues has nothing to do with the proceedings to declare him a fugitive and confiscate his properties. Mallya’s legal team had contested ED’S demand to declare him fugitive, arguing that they are ready to sign a consent term and settle the loan. The court had discarded all his pleas, claiming they were nothing but “his tall claims”.
“In his reply to the ED, Mallya said he was taking efforts for onetime settlement and therefore was unable to be part of the investigation. This reason itself suggests Mallya was avoiding joining the investigation. He had not given any definite date when he will join the investigation,” said the order. The judgement states that by his own admission to the Serious Fraud Investigation Officer (SFIO), Mallya was to return in March-end 2016, and his failure to do so demonstrates he had no intention to return.
The special court also dismissed Mallya’s defense that he left India to attend a prescheduled event and did not return back out of fear. “Had it been the case… and if he was a law abiding citizen, he would have immediately informed the authorities about the schedule to return to India. In spite issuance of repeated summons and warrants of arrests, he did not give a date of return. Therefore, it would be unsafe to accept the argument that he departed India only to attend a prescheduled meeting. His overall conduct suggests his refusal to return of India to face criminal prosecution,” said the order.
Mallya’s lawyers contended that the agencies had concealed the fact that he wanted to make a one-time settlement with banks and creditors, and proceeded to file cases out of political vendetta.
The court dismissed this claim, observing that “a mere statement that the Government of India has pursued political vendetta against him and initiated criminal proceeding and investigation against him cannot be grounds for his stay in the UK. The courts in India have to discharge their judicial functions as per law.”
LEGAL BATTLE
Can government agencies including the Enforcement Directorate (ED) confiscate Mallya’s properties, is the question doing rounds ever since the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court declared him a fugitive economic offender.
But legal eagles opine that a lengthy procedure, including another round of court hearings, await before the agencies can confiscate and auction his properties.
“The court will be considering the say of all the parties and stake holders involved in confiscating of the properties,” said an ED official privy to the investigation adding that these parties are likely to include joint-owners and share- holders.
ED sources stated that in the scenario of confiscation of properties, the court may look if the deals are legitimate and that they are not covert transactions to hide the money trail or to hide the real ownership of the property.