Embattled liquor tycoon <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/it-is-for-judge-to-decide-vijay-mallya-on-returning-to-india-164367">Vijay Mallya</a> is scheduled to return to Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on Monday when his <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/idbi-bank-officials-were-well-aware-of-kingfishers-losses-vijay-mallyas-lawyer-in-uk-court-165265">extradition trial</a> is listed for a judgment hand-down. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The 62-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss, wanted in India on alleged fraud and money laundering charges amounting to an estimated Rs 9,000 crores, has been on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April last year. He has contested his extradition on the grounds that the case against him is "politically motivated" and the loans he has been accused of defrauding on were sought to keep his now-defunct airline afloat. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"I did not borrow a single rupee. The borrower was Kingfisher Airlines. Money was lost due to a genuine and sad business failure. Being held as guarantor is not fraud," he said in his recent Twitter post on the issue. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"I have offered to repay 100 per cent of the principal amount to them. Please take it," he tweeted earlier. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
While dismissing that his intervention has anything to do with the extradition case, it came just days before Judge Emma Arbuthnot is expected to present her ruling in the case. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The trial, which opened at the Magistrates' Court on December 4 last year, has gone through a series of hearings beyond the initial seven days earmarked for it. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
It opened with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) team, led by Mark Summers, laying out the Indian government's prima facie case of fraud and money laundering against Mallya. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Summers sought to establish a "blueprint of dishonesty" against the businessman and that there are no bars to his extradition on human rights grounds. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Mallya's defence team, led by Clare Montgomery, deposed a series of experts in an attempt to prove that the erstwhile Kingfisher Airlines' alleged default of bank loans was the result of business failure rather than "dishonest" and "fraudulent" activity by its owner. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The court was also told that a consortium of Indian banks, led by State Bank of India (SBI), had rejected an offer by the liquor baron in early 2016 to pay back nearly 80 per cent of the principle loan amount owed to them. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
While the CPS argued that Mallya never intended to repay the loans he sought in the first place because his airline's demise was inevitable, the defence tried to establish that Kingfisher Airlines was suffering from consequences of a wider global financial crisis around 2009-2010 and that its failure was a result of factors beyond the company's control. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"There are clear signs that the banks seem to have gone against their own guidelines [in sanctioning some of the loans]," Judge Arbuthnot had noted during the course of the trial. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
In relation to the defence's attempts to dispute Indian prison conditions as a bar to Mallya's extradition on human rights grounds, the judge had indicated to the CPS that she did not require any further information in reference to the prison conditions awaiting Mallya at Barrack 12 of Mumbai's Arthur Road Jail after seeking a video of the cell. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"If the judge is satisfied that all of the procedural requirements are met and that none of the statutory bars to extradition apply, he or she must send the case to the Secretary of State for a decision to be taken on whether to order extradition," explains Pavani Reddy, a UK-based legal expert and Managing Partner of Zaiwalla &amp; Co. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The judge's decision on whether to send Mallya's case to UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid can be appealed with the UK High Court's permission, with the person to be extradited entitled to make an application for permission to appeal to the High Court within 14 days of the date of the Chief Magistrate's ruling. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
On the other hand, the Indian government would also have 14 days to file leave to appeal to the High Court, seeking permission to appeal against a decision not to extradite. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"In case the concerned individual does not file an appeal, and Secretary of State agrees with the magistrate's decision, then the individual must be extradited from the UK within 28 days of the Home Secretary's extradition order. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"This will also apply if an appeal lodged by either party in the High Court is unsuccessful, but the 28 days will commence from the date when the appeal hearing was concluded," said Reddy. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
If the judgment goes ahead as scheduled on Monday, it would mark a significant point in this high-profile extradition trial that has lasted over a year.

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya is scheduled to return to Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on Monday when his extradition trial is listed for a judgment hand-down.

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya is scheduled to return to Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on Monday when his extradition trial is listed for a judgment hand-down. The 62-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss, wanted in India on alleged fraud and money laundering charges amounting to an estimated Rs 9,000 crores, has been on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April last year. He has contested his extradition on the grounds that the case against him is "politically motivated" and the loans he has been accused of defrauding on were sought to keep his now-defunct airline afloat. "I did not borrow a single rupee. The borrower was Kingfisher Airlines. Money was lost due to a genuine and sad business failure. Being held as guarantor is not fraud," he said in his recent Twitter post on the issue. "I have offered to repay 100 per cent of the principal amount to them. Please take it," he tweeted earlier. While dismissing that his intervention has anything to do with the extradition case, it came just days before Judge Emma Arbuthnot is expected to present her ruling in the case. The trial, which opened at the Magistrates' Court on December 4 last year, has gone through a series of hearings beyond the initial seven days earmarked for it. It opened with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) team, led by Mark Summers, laying out the Indian government's prima facie case of fraud and money laundering against Mallya. Summers sought to establish a "blueprint of dishonesty" against the businessman and that there are no bars to his extradition on human rights grounds. Mallya's defence team, led by Clare Montgomery, deposed a series of experts in an attempt to prove that the erstwhile Kingfisher Airlines' alleged default of bank loans was the result of business failure rather than "dishonest" and "fraudulent" activity by its owner. The court was also told that a consortium of Indian banks, led by State Bank of India (SBI), had rejected an offer by the liquor baron in early 2016 to pay back nearly 80 per cent of the principle loan amount owed to them. While the CPS argued that Mallya never intended to repay the loans he sought in the first place because his airline's demise was inevitable, the defence tried to establish that Kingfisher Airlines was suffering from consequences of a wider global financial crisis around 2009-2010 and that its failure was a result of factors beyond the company's control. "There are clear signs that the banks seem to have gone against their own guidelines [in sanctioning some of the loans]," Judge Arbuthnot had noted during the course of the trial. In relation to the defence's attempts to dispute Indian prison conditions as a bar to Mallya's extradition on human rights grounds, the judge had indicated to the CPS that she did not require any further information in reference to the prison conditions awaiting Mallya at Barrack 12 of Mumbai's Arthur Road Jail after seeking a video of the cell. "If the judge is satisfied that all of the procedural requirements are met and that none of the statutory bars to extradition apply, he or she must send the case to the Secretary of State for a decision to be taken on whether to order extradition," explains Pavani Reddy, a UK-based legal expert and Managing Partner of Zaiwalla & Co. The judge's decision on whether to send Mallya's case to UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid can be appealed with the UK High Court's permission, with the person to be extradited entitled to make an application for permission to appeal to the High Court within 14 days of the date of the Chief Magistrate's ruling. On the other hand, the Indian government would also have 14 days to file leave to appeal to the High Court, seeking permission to appeal against a decision not to extradite. "In case the concerned individual does not file an appeal, and Secretary of State agrees with the magistrate's decision, then the individual must be extradited from the UK within 28 days of the Home Secretary's extradition order. "This will also apply if an appeal lodged by either party in the High Court is unsuccessful, but the 28 days will commence from the date when the appeal hearing was concluded," said Reddy. If the judgment goes ahead as scheduled on Monday, it would mark a significant point in this high-profile extradition trial that has lasted over a year.

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya's extradition case edges towards ruling

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya has lost another legal battle linked to his now- defunct Kingfisher Airlines after the UK High Court awarded Singapore-based BOC Aviation an estimated $90 million in claims.

The latest case involving the 62-year-old businessman, whose extradition case over alleged loan defaults amounting to around Rs. 9,000 crore returns to Westminster Magistrates&rsquo; Court in London on March 16, is related to the leasing of aircraft by Kingfisher Airlines dating back to 2014.

&lsquo;No real prospect of defending claim&rsquo;

Justice Picken, in a judgement dated February 5 at the Business and Property Courts of the High Court in London, ruled that &ldquo;the defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.&rdquo;

The defendants in the claim brought by BOC Aviation in Singapore and BOC Aviation (Ireland) Ltd have been named as Kingfisher Airlines Ltd and United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd.

&quot;We are pleased with the judgement but would not like to comment further at this stage,&quot; said a spokesperson for BOC Aviation in Singapore.

The legal claim relates to a leasing agreement between Kingfisher Airlines and aircraft leasing company BOC Aviation involving four planes, of which three were delivered.

The delivery of the fourth was reportedly withheld due to unpaid amounts due in advance under the lease arrangement. BOC Aviation claims that the security deposit, which is a course of redress in such matters, was also inadequate to cover the payments that Kingfisher was &ldquo;contractually bound&rdquo; to make, resulting in the High Court claim in London.

In his order, Justice Picken awarded BOC Aviation the amount overdue along with interest payments and legal costs, which overall amounts to nearly $90 million.

&quot;The Second Defendant [United Breweries] shall be jointly and severally liable with the First Defendant [Kingfisher Airlines] to pay the Claimants [BOC Aviation] half of the said costs liability,&quot; the court order notes.

There was no immediate response from Kingfisher.

The latest ruling comes weeks before India&rsquo;s extradition case against Mr. Mallya is set to come up for one of its final hearings before Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot on March 16, with a judgment expected in May.

The businessman remains on a 6,50,000-pound bail bond, extended until April 2 at the last hearing in the extradition case in January.

Mr. Mallya had been arrested on an extradition warrant by Scotland Yard in April last year and has since been appearing for his extradition trial, which opened on December 4 last year to establish if he can be forced to return to India to face charges of fraud and money-laundering involving Kingfisher Airlines&rsquo; default of bank loans worth nearly Rs. 9,000 crores.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), representing the Indian government, has claimed that the evidence they have presented confirms &ldquo;dishonesty&rdquo; on the part of the businessman, who acquired the loans through misrepresentation and had no intention of repaying them.

Mr. Mallya&rsquo;s defence team has deposed a series of expert witnesses to try and establish that the default by Kingfisher Airlines was the result of business failure within a wider context of a global financial crisis and that its owner had no &quot;fraudulent&quot; intentions.

When the trial returns next month, the judge will hear concluding arguments on the admissibility of some of the evidence presented by the CPS, on behalf of the Indian authorities.

Double whammy

Meanwhile, Mr. Mallya faces parallel litigation around an estimated $1.5-billion worldwide freeze order on his assets.

According to court documents submitted at the UK High Court last year, the claim brought by 13 Indian banks is expected to come up for a two-day hearing in the Queen&rsquo;s Bench Division of the commercial court in England&rsquo;s High Court of Justice some time after April 11.

Now- defunct Kingfisher Airlines to pay Singapore-based BOC Aviation an estimated $90 million in claims

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya has lost another legal battle linked to his now- defunct Kingfisher Airlines after the UK High Court awarded Singapore-based BOC Aviation an estimated $90 million in claims. The latest case involving the 62-year-old businessman, whose extradition case over alleged loan defaults amounting to around Rs. 9,000 crore returns to Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on March 16, is related to the leasing of aircraft by Kingfisher Airlines dating back to 2014. ‘No real prospect of defending claim’ Justice Picken, in a judgement dated February 5 at the Business and Property Courts of the High Court in London, ruled that “the defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.” The defendants in the claim brought by BOC Aviation in Singapore and BOC Aviation (Ireland) Ltd have been named as Kingfisher Airlines Ltd and United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. "We are pleased with the judgement but would not like to comment further at this stage," said a spokesperson for BOC Aviation in Singapore. The legal claim relates to a leasing agreement between Kingfisher Airlines and aircraft leasing company BOC Aviation involving four planes, of which three were delivered. The delivery of the fourth was reportedly withheld due to unpaid amounts due in advance under the lease arrangement. BOC Aviation claims that the security deposit, which is a course of redress in such matters, was also inadequate to cover the payments that Kingfisher was “contractually bound” to make, resulting in the High Court claim in London. In his order, Justice Picken awarded BOC Aviation the amount overdue along with interest payments and legal costs, which overall amounts to nearly $90 million. "The Second Defendant [United Breweries] shall be jointly and severally liable with the First Defendant [Kingfisher Airlines] to pay the Claimants [BOC Aviation] half of the said costs liability," the court order notes. There was no immediate response from Kingfisher. The latest ruling comes weeks before India’s extradition case against Mr. Mallya is set to come up for one of its final hearings before Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot on March 16, with a judgment expected in May. The businessman remains on a 6,50,000-pound bail bond, extended until April 2 at the last hearing in the extradition case in January. Mr. Mallya had been arrested on an extradition warrant by Scotland Yard in April last year and has since been appearing for his extradition trial, which opened on December 4 last year to establish if he can be forced to return to India to face charges of fraud and money-laundering involving Kingfisher Airlines’ default of bank loans worth nearly Rs. 9,000 crores. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), representing the Indian government, has claimed that the evidence they have presented confirms “dishonesty” on the part of the businessman, who acquired the loans through misrepresentation and had no intention of repaying them. Mr. Mallya’s defence team has deposed a series of expert witnesses to try and establish that the default by Kingfisher Airlines was the result of business failure within a wider context of a global financial crisis and that its owner had no "fraudulent" intentions. When the trial returns next month, the judge will hear concluding arguments on the admissibility of some of the evidence presented by the CPS, on behalf of the Indian authorities. Double whammy Meanwhile, Mr. Mallya faces parallel litigation around an estimated $1.5-billion worldwide freeze order on his assets. According to court documents submitted at the UK High Court last year, the claim brought by 13 Indian banks is expected to come up for a two-day hearing in the Queen’s Bench Division of the commercial court in England’s High Court of Justice some time after April 11.

Vijay Mallya loses court battle, to pay $90 million to Singapore's BOC aviation

liquor-tycoon

Liquor Tycoon, News on Liquor Tycoon, stories on Liquor Tycoon, articles on Liquor Tycoon, Liquor Tycoon stories at Wion, Liquor Tycoon news, Liquor Tycoon latest news