The UK High Court has said in a ruling that the government’s decision to ban activist group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful. The court found that then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to ban the group was disproportionate, raising questions about the arrests of almost 3000 people at solidarity protests.&nbsp;However, Judge Victoria Sharp ruled that the ban remains in place pending an appeal by the government.Human rights activists had argued that the ban represented a sweeping overreach of government power, risked criminalising political dissent, and set a far-reaching precedent for the use of anti-terror laws against protest movements.&nbsp;The group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, had challenged the British government’s decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws. As many as 2,787 people were arrested at protests nationwide since July.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-rules-based-world-order-no-longer-exists-says-chancellor-friedrich-merz-at-munich-security-conference-1770994111300">‘Rules-based world order no longer exists,’ says Chancellor Friedrich Merz at Munich Security Conference</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;London's Metropolitan Police on Friday acknowledged “there will likely be some confusion,” among the public following the government’s announcement to appeal the decision. It said that officers will no longer be making arrests in relation to Palestine Action support but will continue to “focus on gathering evidence.”&nbsp;After the court’s ruling, crowds who had gathered outside London’s High Court erupted in cheers and chants of “Free free Palestine.”&nbsp;&nbsp;The Home Office has spent nearly £700,000 on the case, said Ammori, citing a Freedom of Information request.The case followed a three-day judicial review in December, where lawyers for the group’s co-founder argued the ban was “an extraordinary and unlawful escalation against political dissent.”&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bnp-sweeps-to-power-with-two-thirds-majority-tarique-rahman-poised-to-be-pm-1770988570665">BNP sweeps to power with two-thirds majority; Tarique Rahman poised to be PM</a>&nbsp;Palestine Action is a UK-based group that aims to disrupt the operations of weapons manufacturers connected to the Israeli government and its war in Gaza. The group was founded by Ammori and climate activist Richard Barnard in 2020, when it took its first action to shut down the UK operations of Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer.&nbsp;&nbsp;Palestine Action has also occupied, blockaded, spray-painted, and disrupted the Israeli-French drone company UAV Tactical Systems and the global arms giant Leonardo.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-ai-will-replace-most-white-collar-jobs-soon-says-microsoft-ai-head-mustafa-suleyman-1770916772093">‘AI will replace most white-collar jobs soon,’ says Microsoft AI head Mustafa Suleyman</a>&nbsp;The group’s late June 2025 action at the RAF Brize Norton air base, where activists vandalised two Airbus Voyager refuelling planes with paint and crowbars, led to its banning.Government lawyers argued that the proscription of the group was a necessary national security measure.

The Palestine Action group’s late June 2025 action at the RAF Brize Norton air base, where activists vandalised two Airbus Voyager refuelling planes with paint and crowbars, led to its banning. Government lawyers argued that its proscription was a necessary national security measure.

The UK High Court has said in a ruling that the government’s decision to ban activist group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful. The court found that then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to ban the group was disproportionate, raising questions about the arrests of almost 3000 people at solidarity protests. However, Judge Victoria Sharp ruled that the ban remains in place pending an appeal by the government. Human rights activists had argued that the ban represented a sweeping overreach of government power, risked criminalising political dissent, and set a far-reaching precedent for the use of anti-terror laws against protest movements. The group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, had challenged the British government’s decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws. As many as 2,787 people were arrested at protests nationwide since July. Also Read: ‘Rules-based world order no longer exists,’ says Chancellor Friedrich Merz at Munich Security Conference London's Metropolitan Police on Friday acknowledged “there will likely be some confusion,” among the public following the government’s announcement to appeal the decision. It said that officers will no longer be making arrests in relation to Palestine Action support but will continue to “focus on gathering evidence.” After the court’s ruling, crowds who had gathered outside London’s High Court erupted in cheers and chants of “Free free Palestine.” The Home Office has spent nearly £700,000 on the case, said Ammori, citing a Freedom of Information request. The case followed a three-day judicial review in December, where lawyers for the group’s co-founder argued the ban was “an extraordinary and unlawful escalation against political dissent.” Also Read: BNP sweeps to power with two-thirds majority; Tarique Rahman poised to be PM Palestine Action is a UK-based group that aims to disrupt the operations of weapons manufacturers connected to the Israeli government and its war in Gaza. The group was founded by Ammori and climate activist Richard Barnard in 2020, when it took its first action to shut down the UK operations of Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer. Palestine Action has also occupied, blockaded, spray-painted, and disrupted the Israeli-French drone company UAV Tactical Systems and the global arms giant Leonardo. Also Read: ‘AI will replace most white-collar jobs soon,’ says Microsoft AI head Mustafa Suleyman The group’s late June 2025 action at the RAF Brize Norton air base, where activists vandalised two Airbus Voyager refuelling planes with paint and crowbars, led to its banning. Government lawyers argued that the proscription of the group was a necessary national security measure.

The Palestine Action group’s late June 2025 action at the RAF Brize Norton air base, where activists vandalised two Airbus Voyager refuelling planes with paint and crowbars, led to its banning. Government lawyers argued that its proscription was a necessary national security measure.

UK High Court says terror tag, ban on activist group Palestine Action ‘unlawful’

The ensuing legal battle in the UK not only resulted in a record-breaking settlement but also revealed allegations of intimidation and abuse, turning the princess’s private struggle into a global story of courage, justice, and the challenges of life at the highest echelons of royalty.

The ensuing legal battle in the UK not only resulted in a record-breaking settlement but also revealed allegations of intimidation and abuse, turning the princess’s private struggle into a global story of courage, justice, and the challenges of life at the highest echelons of royalty.

Scandal, power and royalty: The Jordanian princess who fled Dubai to win the UK’s most expensive divorce

The UK government is still struggling to launch its key policy of legal migration. A UK High Court judge has ordered the Home Secretary to change a prominent part of the trafficking policy. Watch the video to know more.

UK home under radar over trafficking rules, no support for trafficking victims | World News | WION

The United Kingdom High Court on Wednesday (November 9) ordered the extradition of Nirav Modi to India as the diamond merchant lost his appeal on mental health grounds. He is set to face fraud charges in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam.&nbsp;

The ruling noted that his "risk of suicide" is not such that it would be either "unjust or oppressive" to extradite him to India to face charges.&nbsp;

The ruling stated: "Pulling these various strands together and weighing them in the balance so as to reach an overall evaluative judgment on the question raised by Section 91, we are far from satisfied that Mr Modi's mental condition and the risk of suicide are such that it would be either unjust or oppressive to extradite him."&nbsp;

"It may be that the main benefit of the appeal has been to obtain the extensive further [Indian government] assurances that we have identified in the course of this judgment, which render the position clear to Mr Modi's advantage and the District Judge's decision supportable," it added.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/deloitte-india-fires-employee-accused-of-running-an-international-hacking-ring-532546">Deloitte India fires employee accused of running an international hacking ring</a>&nbsp;

WATCH |&nbsp;Deloitte employee behind global hacking gang; hack firm operate under the name 'Whitein'&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/deloitte-employee-behind-global-hacking-gang-hack-firm-operate-under-the-name-whitein-532519/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

PNB scam is India's biggest banking scam allegedly perpetrated by Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi with a combined loss of over $2 billion.

An investigation into the scam revealed that Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi are wanted for allegedly siphoning off public money from the state-run PNB, using the Letters of Undertaking.&nbsp;

Probes have also revealed that messages for fraudulent LoUs were sent to overseas banks by misusing Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT).&nbsp;

For the unversed, SWIFT is an international messaging system for banking, and without making their subsequent entries in PNB's internal software 'Finacle', thus bypassing any scrutiny of such funds in the bank.&nbsp;

What is an LoU?&nbsp;

An LoU is a guarantee given by an issuing bank to Indian banks having branches abroad to grant short-term credit to the applicant. In case of default, the bank issuing the LoU has to pay the liability to the credit-giving bank along with accruing interest.&nbsp;

In Nirav Modi's case, his companies along with Choksi's took loans from banks abroad on the basis of these LoUs but did not repay them, thus transferring the liability to PNB.&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.&nbsp;

The United Kingdom High Court on Wednesday (November 9) ordered the extradition of Nirav Modi to India as the diamond merchant lost his appeal on mental health grounds.

The United Kingdom High Court on Wednesday (November 9) ordered the extradition of Nirav Modi to India as the diamond merchant lost his appeal on mental health grounds. He is set to face fraud charges in the Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam. The ruling noted that his "risk of suicide" is not such that it would be either "unjust or oppressive" to extradite him to India to face charges. The ruling stated: "Pulling these various strands together and weighing them in the balance so as to reach an overall evaluative judgment on the question raised by Section 91, we are far from satisfied that Mr Modi's mental condition and the risk of suicide are such that it would be either unjust or oppressive to extradite him." "It may be that the main benefit of the appeal has been to obtain the extensive further [Indian government] assurances that we have identified in the course of this judgment, which render the position clear to Mr Modi's advantage and the District Judge's decision supportable," it added. ALSO READ | Deloitte India fires employee accused of running an international hacking ring WATCH | Deloitte employee behind global hacking gang; hack firm operate under the name 'Whitein' × PNB scam is India's biggest banking scam allegedly perpetrated by Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi with a combined loss of over $2 billion. An investigation into the scam revealed that Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi are wanted for allegedly siphoning off public money from the state-run PNB, using the Letters of Undertaking. Probes have also revealed that messages for fraudulent LoUs were sent to overseas banks by misusing Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT). For the unversed, SWIFT is an international messaging system for banking, and without making their subsequent entries in PNB's internal software 'Finacle', thus bypassing any scrutiny of such funds in the bank. What is an LoU? An LoU is a guarantee given by an issuing bank to Indian banks having branches abroad to grant short-term credit to the applicant. In case of default, the bank issuing the LoU has to pay the liability to the credit-giving bank along with accruing interest. In Nirav Modi's case, his companies along with Choksi's took loans from banks abroad on the basis of these LoUs but did not repay them, thus transferring the liability to PNB. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

PNB scam: Major setback for fugitive Nirav Modi as UK High Court orders his extradition to India

The UK High Court has ruled that the country recognises&nbsp; Juan Guaido as&nbsp;Venezuela's President, instead of&nbsp;Nicolas Maduro.

The ruling was made in the case of&nbsp;who controls Venezuela's&nbsp;gold reserves stored in London.&nbsp;High court judge Nigel Teare handed down the judgement on Thursday.

The judgement states that British government had formally recognised Guaido as the constitutional interim President of Venezuela.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-president-maduro-gives-eu-ambassador-72-hours-to-leave-country-309565">Also read:&nbsp;Venezuela President Maduro gives EU ambassador 72 hours to leave country</a>

It has also been added that considering the ‘One Voice’ and ‘Act of State’ doctrines, the British High Court is precluded from investigating the validity of Guaido's acts.

Guaido, the opposition leader, back in 2019 had used his position of&nbsp;head of Parliament to challenge Maduro's authority by declaring himself acting president after the National Assembly deemed the socialist leader a usurper over his controversial re-election in 2018 in a poll widely branded fraudulent.

Since then, he is recognised as Venezuela's interim president by more than 50 nations, including the UK, the United States and much of the European Union.

This decision came few days after&nbsp;Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro issued a notice to the&nbsp;European Union mission in Caracas, Isabel Brilhante Pedrosa, 72 hours to leave the country after the bloc announced sanctions against 11 Venezuelan officials.

The UK High Court has ruled that the country recognises Juan Guaido as Venezuela's President, instead of Nicolas Maduro. The ruling was made in the case of who controls Venezuela's gold reserves stored in London.

The UK High Court has ruled that the country recognises Juan Guaido as Venezuela's President, instead of Nicolas Maduro. The ruling was made in the case of who controls Venezuela's gold reserves stored in London. High court judge Nigel Teare handed down the judgement on Thursday. The judgement states that British government had formally recognised Guaido as the constitutional interim President of Venezuela. Also read: Venezuela President Maduro gives EU ambassador 72 hours to leave country It has also been added that considering the ‘One Voice’ and ‘Act of State’ doctrines, the British High Court is precluded from investigating the validity of Guaido's acts. Guaido, the opposition leader, back in 2019 had used his position of head of Parliament to challenge Maduro's authority by declaring himself acting president after the National Assembly deemed the socialist leader a usurper over his controversial re-election in 2018 in a poll widely branded fraudulent. Since then, he is recognised as Venezuela's interim president by more than 50 nations, including the UK, the United States and much of the European Union. This decision came few days after Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro issued a notice to the European Union mission in Caracas, Isabel Brilhante Pedrosa, 72 hours to leave the country after the bloc announced sanctions against 11 Venezuelan officials.

Britain recognises Guaido as Venezuela president, not Maduro: UK High Court

Liquor baron Vijay Mallya on Tuesday <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/latest-india-news-vijay-mallyas-appeal-against-extradition-to-india-to-be-heard-in-uk-high-court-280034">appeared before the Royal Courts of Justice</a> in the United Kingdom&nbsp;for his appeal against extradition to India to face fraud and money laundering charges amounting to Rs 9,000 crores, where his lawyers claimed "multiple errors" in a magistrates' court's order.

The 64-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss, who remains on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April 2017, avoided the usual scrum of reporters at the court entrance and went in with his lawyers separately. "I'm just here to listen,"&nbsp;he said, when asked for a comment.

Justice Stephen Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing were told by Mallya's barrister that Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot's verdict in favour of extradition in December 2018 was flawed and also questioned the admissibility of some witness statements submitted by the Indian government.

Clare Montgomery opened her arguments to try and establish that Mallya had no fraudulent intentions when he sought bank loans for his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines because he is no "fly by night figure but an immensely wealthy man"&nbsp;who was not running any sort of "ponzi scheme"&nbsp;but a reputable airline, which fell into economic misfortune along with other Indian airlines.

In what she described as a "very dense case", which has proved extraordinarily difficult to manage as there are "any&nbsp;number of rabbit holes"&nbsp;to go down, Montgomery said, "She (Arbuthnot) did not look at all of the evidence because if she had, she would not have fallen into the multiple errors that permeate her judgment."

The hearing is scheduled for three days with Mallya's barrister to lay out her oral arguments, with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on behalf of the Indian government set to counter on Wednesday. A verdict may be handed down at the end of the hearing on Thursday, but judgment could be delayed to a later date depending on how the hearing progresses.

Representatives from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were present in court as Montgomery once again sought to raise questions over whether the CBI behaved "properly in bringing charges" against Mallya under former Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who she said may have been guilty of "misconduct".

Judge Irwin intervened to question whether she could re-enter these pervious claims, which had already been rejected at the magistrates' court level and sought clarifications on where the law may have been wrongly applied by the Chief Magistrate.

Mallya had received permission to appeal against his extradition order signed off by former UK home secretary Sajid Javid last February only on one ground, which challenges the Indian government's prima facie case against him of fraudulent intentions in acquiring bank loans.

The High Court has already accepted Judge Arbuthnot's conclusions on all other aspects of the extradition case, including so-called "extraneous circumstances"&nbsp;of Mallya being pursued by the Indian authorities for political reasons of a clash between the ruling BJP and Opposition Congress party. Some of the other grounds invoked in last year's hearing claimed Mallya would not receive a fair trial in India, which was also dismissed as the judges upheld Arbuthnot's ruling on the matter that the wide media interest in the Mallya case would ensure justice.

His legal team had also sought to challenge the Indian government's assurances that Mallya would be held in safe prison conditions at Barrack 12 in Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai, which was dismissed by the High Court.

At the end of a year-long extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London in December 2018, Judge Arbuthnot had found "clear evidence of dispersal and misapplication of the loan funds"&nbsp;and accepted a prima facie case of fraud and a conspiracy to launder money against Mallya, as presented by the CPS on behalf of the Indian government.

Mallya remains on bail involving a bail bond worth 650,000 pounds and other restrictions on his travel while he contests that ruling.

Liquor baron Vijay Mallya on Tuesday appeared before the Royal Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom for his appeal against extradition to India to face fraud and money laundering charges amounting to Rs 9,000 crores, where his lawyers claimed "multiple errors" in a magistrates' court's order.

Liquor baron Vijay Mallya on Tuesday appeared before the Royal Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom for his appeal against extradition to India to face fraud and money laundering charges amounting to Rs 9,000 crores, where his lawyers claimed "multiple errors" in a magistrates' court's order. The 64-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss, who remains on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April 2017, avoided the usual scrum of reporters at the court entrance and went in with his lawyers separately. "I'm just here to listen," he said, when asked for a comment. Justice Stephen Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing were told by Mallya's barrister that Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot's verdict in favour of extradition in December 2018 was flawed and also questioned the admissibility of some witness statements submitted by the Indian government. Clare Montgomery opened her arguments to try and establish that Mallya had no fraudulent intentions when he sought bank loans for his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines because he is no "fly by night figure but an immensely wealthy man" who was not running any sort of "ponzi scheme" but a reputable airline, which fell into economic misfortune along with other Indian airlines. In what she described as a "very dense case", which has proved extraordinarily difficult to manage as there are "any number of rabbit holes" to go down, Montgomery said, "She (Arbuthnot) did not look at all of the evidence because if she had, she would not have fallen into the multiple errors that permeate her judgment." The hearing is scheduled for three days with Mallya's barrister to lay out her oral arguments, with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on behalf of the Indian government set to counter on Wednesday. A verdict may be handed down at the end of the hearing on Thursday, but judgment could be delayed to a later date depending on how the hearing progresses. Representatives from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were present in court as Montgomery once again sought to raise questions over whether the CBI behaved "properly in bringing charges" against Mallya under former Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who she said may have been guilty of "misconduct". Judge Irwin intervened to question whether she could re-enter these pervious claims, which had already been rejected at the magistrates' court level and sought clarifications on where the law may have been wrongly applied by the Chief Magistrate. Mallya had received permission to appeal against his extradition order signed off by former UK home secretary Sajid Javid last February only on one ground, which challenges the Indian government's prima facie case against him of fraudulent intentions in acquiring bank loans. The High Court has already accepted Judge Arbuthnot's conclusions on all other aspects of the extradition case, including so-called "extraneous circumstances" of Mallya being pursued by the Indian authorities for political reasons of a clash between the ruling BJP and Opposition Congress party. Some of the other grounds invoked in last year's hearing claimed Mallya would not receive a fair trial in India, which was also dismissed as the judges upheld Arbuthnot's ruling on the matter that the wide media interest in the Mallya case would ensure justice. His legal team had also sought to challenge the Indian government's assurances that Mallya would be held in safe prison conditions at Barrack 12 in Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai, which was dismissed by the High Court. At the end of a year-long extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London in December 2018, Judge Arbuthnot had found "clear evidence of dispersal and misapplication of the loan funds" and accepted a prima facie case of fraud and a conspiracy to launder money against Mallya, as presented by the CPS on behalf of the Indian government. Mallya remains on bail involving a bail bond worth 650,000 pounds and other restrictions on his travel while he contests that ruling.

Multiple errors in extradition order for Mallya, lawyer to UK High Court

The UK high court on Wednesday ruled in favour of India and heirs of the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad in the 70-year-old case.&nbsp;

The case "High Commissioner for Pakistan in the UK v Prince Mukkaram Jah &amp; others’ or referred as "Hyderabad fund case" pertains to £35 million funds that are being held by the National Westminster Bank in London. India and the heir of the last Nizam of Hyderabad will get 306 crore, that is &nbsp;Rs 45,80,500

"Nizam VII was beneficially entitled to the fund and those claiming in right of Nizam VII -&nbsp;the Princes and India -&nbsp;are entitled to have the sum paid out to their order. I will leave it to the parties to frame an appropriate form of order for my approval" the judgement handed out by Justice Marcus Smith said.

On September 20, 1948, the foreign minister of the then princely state of Hyderabad, Nawab Moin Nawaz Jung, transferred &nbsp;£1,007,940, which is today's equivalent of £35 million to the account of Habib Ibrahim Rahimtoola, the Pakistani High Commissioner to the UK.

Pakistan claimed the funds were transferred as payments for arms shipments during the rebellion in the state or as an outright gift. The High Court held that "beneficial ownership" of the funds lay with the seventh Nizam concluding that India and the two grandsons of Nizam were now entitled to have the fund.&nbsp;

Khawar Qureshi, Pakistan's lawyer at International Court of Justice(ICJ) for Kulbhushan Jadhav case was one of the lawyers in the Hyderabad fund case.

The ministry of external affairs in a statement said: "The court rejected arguments advanced by Pakistan that the dispute was non-justiciable, either in whole or in part; that the doctrine of illegality somehow barred recovery; or that the claims of other parties were time-barred."&nbsp;

The case first came to focus in 1954 when Pakistan asserted its sovereignty since money was sent into the account of its then High Commissioner Rahimtoola. In 2013, Pakistan commenced the present proceedings but waved off the sovereignty or state immunity to claim ownership. These were against the bank for payment of the fund to Pakistan.

A dejected Pakistan has reacted saying it is "examining all aspects of the detailed judgment and will take further action in light of legal advice received."

Pakistan had put up an application to discontinue the proceedings it had initiated in June 2013 but it was dismissed by the High Court of Justice in London in 2015. The court ordered Islamabad to pay India the sum of 150,000 pounds towards legal costs it incurred to defeat Pakistan’s application.

The UK high court on Wednesday ruled in favour of India and heirs of the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad in the 70-year-old case. The case "High Commissioner for Pakistan in the UK v Prince Mukkaram Jah & others’ or referred as "Hyderabad fund case" pertains to £35 million funds that are being held by the National Westminster Bank in London.

The UK high court on Wednesday ruled in favour of India and heirs of the seventh Nizam of Hyderabad in the 70-year-old case. The case "High Commissioner for Pakistan in the UK v Prince Mukkaram Jah & others’ or referred as "Hyderabad fund case" pertains to £35 million funds that are being held by the National Westminster Bank in London. India and the heir of the last Nizam of Hyderabad will get 306 crore, that is Rs 45,80,500 "Nizam VII was beneficially entitled to the fund and those claiming in right of Nizam VII - the Princes and India - are entitled to have the sum paid out to their order. I will leave it to the parties to frame an appropriate form of order for my approval" the judgement handed out by Justice Marcus Smith said. On September 20, 1948, the foreign minister of the then princely state of Hyderabad, Nawab Moin Nawaz Jung, transferred £1,007,940, which is today's equivalent of £35 million to the account of Habib Ibrahim Rahimtoola, the Pakistani High Commissioner to the UK. Pakistan claimed the funds were transferred as payments for arms shipments during the rebellion in the state or as an outright gift. The High Court held that "beneficial ownership" of the funds lay with the seventh Nizam concluding that India and the two grandsons of Nizam were now entitled to have the fund. Khawar Qureshi, Pakistan's lawyer at International Court of Justice(ICJ) for Kulbhushan Jadhav case was one of the lawyers in the Hyderabad fund case. The ministry of external affairs in a statement said: "The court rejected arguments advanced by Pakistan that the dispute was non-justiciable, either in whole or in part; that the doctrine of illegality somehow barred recovery; or that the claims of other parties were time-barred." The case first came to focus in 1954 when Pakistan asserted its sovereignty since money was sent into the account of its then High Commissioner Rahimtoola. In 2013, Pakistan commenced the present proceedings but waved off the sovereignty or state immunity to claim ownership. These were against the bank for payment of the fund to Pakistan. A dejected Pakistan has reacted saying it is "examining all aspects of the detailed judgment and will take further action in light of legal advice received." Pakistan had put up an application to discontinue the proceedings it had initiated in June 2013 but it was dismissed by the High Court of Justice in London in 2015. The court ordered Islamabad to pay India the sum of 150,000 pounds towards legal costs it incurred to defeat Pakistan’s application.

UK court rules in India's favour against Pakistan in Hyderabad funds case

The UK High Court on Wednesday ruled in favour of India and the successors of late 7th Nizam of Hyderabad, who sent £1 million to a London bank in 1948, now estimated to be £35 million.

"In the judgment today, the UK High Court has rejected Pakistan`s claim that the fund had been intended as payment for arms shipments or as an outright gift. The Court has held that beneficial ownership in the fund as on 1948 lay with the 7th Nizam and that it had been held on trust to his benefit and that of his successors in the title since then," the External Affairs Ministry said in a statement.

The fund has been held by the National Westminster Bank in London.

The fund had been held in the account of the High Commissioner of Pakistan to the UK Rahimtoola since September 1948.

It had been the subject of earlier proceedings in the 1950s in which the UK House of Lords set aside proceedings brought by the 7th Nizam claiming the fund as Pakistan invoked state immunity, the statement read.

In 2013, Pakistan commenced fresh proceedings, thereby waiving state immunity. A subsequent attempt by Pakistan to discontinue the proceedings was rejected as an abuse of process by the UK Court.

The Court issued a wide-ranging judgment today and rejected arguments advanced by Pakistan that the dispute was non-justiciable, either in whole or in part; that the doctrine of illegality somehow barred recovery; or that the claims of other parties were time-barred.

The Court also held that Pakistan`s pleading of limitation was an "abuse of process" and that remedies in trust law and restitution were available against both Pakistan and the Bank.

Having found that the 7th Nizam was beneficially entitled to the fund, the Court today concluded that those claiming in right of the 7th Nizam, that is, India and the two grandsons of Nizam were now entitled to have the fund.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The UK High Court on Wednesday ruled in favour of India and the successors of late 7th Nizam of Hyderabad, who sent £1 million to a London bank in 1948, now estimated to be £35 million.

The UK High Court on Wednesday ruled in favour of India and the successors of late 7th Nizam of Hyderabad, who sent £1 million to a London bank in 1948, now estimated to be £35 million. "In the judgment today, the UK High Court has rejected Pakistan`s claim that the fund had been intended as payment for arms shipments or as an outright gift. The Court has held that beneficial ownership in the fund as on 1948 lay with the 7th Nizam and that it had been held on trust to his benefit and that of his successors in the title since then," the External Affairs Ministry said in a statement. The fund has been held by the National Westminster Bank in London. The fund had been held in the account of the High Commissioner of Pakistan to the UK Rahimtoola since September 1948. It had been the subject of earlier proceedings in the 1950s in which the UK House of Lords set aside proceedings brought by the 7th Nizam claiming the fund as Pakistan invoked state immunity, the statement read. In 2013, Pakistan commenced fresh proceedings, thereby waiving state immunity. A subsequent attempt by Pakistan to discontinue the proceedings was rejected as an abuse of process by the UK Court. The Court issued a wide-ranging judgment today and rejected arguments advanced by Pakistan that the dispute was non-justiciable, either in whole or in part; that the doctrine of illegality somehow barred recovery; or that the claims of other parties were time-barred. The Court also held that Pakistan`s pleading of limitation was an "abuse of process" and that remedies in trust law and restitution were available against both Pakistan and the Bank. Having found that the 7th Nizam was beneficially entitled to the fund, the Court today concluded that those claiming in right of the 7th Nizam, that is, India and the two grandsons of Nizam were now entitled to have the fund.

UK High Court rules in India's favour against Pakistan in Hyderabad funds case

In a big blow to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/nirav-modi-vijay-mallya-to-share-same-jail-cell-in-mumbais-arthur-road-jail-judge-ask-prosecution-206649">Vijay Mallya</a>, London’s High Court has rejected <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/vijay-mallya-tells-bombay-hc-confiscating-properties-draconian-not-help-creditors-207234">fugitive liquor baron</a>'s application for permission to appeal against the extradition order against him.&nbsp;

Mallya, 63, had filed the application in the High Court after UK's home secretary Sajid Javid signed off on a Westminster Magistrates' Court order for his extradition to face the Indian courts back in February.

"The application for permission to appeal was refused by Mr Justice William Davis on 05/04/2019," said a spokesperson for the UK judiciary.&nbsp;

"The appellant (Mallya) has five business days to apply for oral consideration. If a renewal application is made, it will be listed before a High Court judge and dealt with at a hearing."

The application seeking “leave to appeal” had been passed on to a single judge, who was to make a decision on the basis of papers submitted as part of the application. Now that the “judge on papers” application has been rejected by Judge Davis, Mallya has the option to submit for a “renewal”.

The renewal process will lead to a brief oral hearing during which Mallya's legal team and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on behalf of the Indian government will renew their respective claims for and against an appeal for a judge to determine if it can proceed to a full hearing.

Mallya has lived in the UK since March 2016 and remains on bail on an extradition warrant executed by Scotland Yard in April 2017.

In her verdict at the end of a year-long extradition trial in December last year, Judge Emma Arbuthnot had ruled that the "flashy" billionaire had a "case to answer" in the Indian courts.

(With inputs from PTI)

In a big blow to Vijay Mallya, London’s High Court has rejected fugitive liquor baron's application for permission to appeal against the extradition order against him.

In a big blow to Vijay Mallya, London’s High Court has rejected fugitive liquor baron's application for permission to appeal against the extradition order against him. Mallya, 63, had filed the application in the High Court after UK's home secretary Sajid Javid signed off on a Westminster Magistrates' Court order for his extradition to face the Indian courts back in February. "The application for permission to appeal was refused by Mr Justice William Davis on 05/04/2019," said a spokesperson for the UK judiciary. "The appellant (Mallya) has five business days to apply for oral consideration. If a renewal application is made, it will be listed before a High Court judge and dealt with at a hearing." The application seeking “leave to appeal” had been passed on to a single judge, who was to make a decision on the basis of papers submitted as part of the application. Now that the “judge on papers” application has been rejected by Judge Davis, Mallya has the option to submit for a “renewal”. The renewal process will lead to a brief oral hearing during which Mallya's legal team and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on behalf of the Indian government will renew their respective claims for and against an appeal for a judge to determine if it can proceed to a full hearing. Mallya has lived in the UK since March 2016 and remains on bail on an extradition warrant executed by Scotland Yard in April 2017. In her verdict at the end of a year-long extradition trial in December last year, Judge Emma Arbuthnot had ruled that the "flashy" billionaire had a "case to answer" in the Indian courts. (With inputs from PTI)

UK court denies Vijay Mallya permission to appeal against extradition

Embattled <a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/watch-vijay-mallya-enters-the-oval-stadium-to-watch-test-match-between-india-and-england-164321">liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya’</a>s legal troubles continue to mount as he is set to face bankruptcy proceedings in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/vijay-mallya-extradition-uk-court-asks-indian-government-to-submit-videos-of-arthur-road-jail-by-september-12-156067">UK High Court </a>next year, brought by a consortium of Indian banks in their attempt to recoup unpaid debt worth nearly 1.145 billion pounds.&nbsp;

TLT LLP, the UK-based law firm which had won a landmark case for the 13 banks led by State Bank of India (SBI) earlier this year, confirmed on Monday that their bankruptcy petition against the 62-year-old businessman has been transferred to the insolvency list in London’s High Court of Justice for a hearing in the first half of 2019.

“We can confirm that we presented a bankruptcy petition against Dr Mallya on behalf of the banks on 11 September 2018,” said Paul Gair, a partner at TLT.&nbsp;

“This was issued in Dr Mallya’s local court, Northampton County Court, and has now been transferred to the insolvency list in the High Court of Justice in London for the hearing. The hearing is expected to take place in the Spring,” he said.

In a ruling in May, a UK High Court judge had refused to overturn a worldwide order freezing Mallya’s assets and upheld an Indian court’s ruling that the consortium of 13 Indian banks was entitled to recover funds amounting to nearly 1.145 billion pounds.

TLT LLP has been representing the banks in their efforts to recover their dues as part of the worldwide freezing order, with the bankruptcy petition aimed at seizing his assets to recover dues.

Besides SBI, the 13 Indian banks include Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu &amp; Kashmir Bank, Punjab &amp; Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co Pvt Ltd. They have secured follow-on High Court orders to recover some of the funds owed to them as a result of unpaid loans by Mallya’s now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

Mallya, meanwhile, remains on bail after his extradition was recently ordered by Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, an order which now awaits a sign-off by UK home secretary Sajid Javid.&nbsp;

Chief Magistrate, Judge Emma Arbuthnot, had ruled last week that Mallya does have a case to answer in the Indian courts over substantial “misrepresentations” of his financial dealings, in a boost to India’s efforts to bring back the businessman wanted for alleged bank fraud and money laundering charges amounting to an estimated Rs 9,000 crores.&nbsp;

“There is clear evidence of dispersal and misapplication of the loan funds and I find a prima facie case the Dr Mallya was involved in a conspiracy to launder money,” the ruling noted.

Mallya has indicated that he plans to appeal the verdict in the High Court. &nbsp;“My legal team will review the judgment in detail, consider various options and then I will decide going forward. There is a process ahead,” he told reporters. He will have 14 days to file an appeal once Javid has made his decision on the extradition order, which rarely goes against the Chief Magistrate’s conclusion.&nbsp;

In separate legal proceedings, Mallya is also set for a trial in May next year to prevent his posh London home, overlooking Regent’s Park, from foreclosure by Swiss Bank UBS.

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya’s legal troubles continue to mount as he is set to face bankruptcy proceedings in the UK High Court next year, brought by a consortium of Indian banks in their attempt to recoup unpaid debt worth nearly 1.

Embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya’s legal troubles continue to mount as he is set to face bankruptcy proceedings in the UK High Court next year, brought by a consortium of Indian banks in their attempt to recoup unpaid debt worth nearly 1.145 billion pounds. TLT LLP, the UK-based law firm which had won a landmark case for the 13 banks led by State Bank of India (SBI) earlier this year, confirmed on Monday that their bankruptcy petition against the 62-year-old businessman has been transferred to the insolvency list in London’s High Court of Justice for a hearing in the first half of 2019. “We can confirm that we presented a bankruptcy petition against Dr Mallya on behalf of the banks on 11 September 2018,” said Paul Gair, a partner at TLT. “This was issued in Dr Mallya’s local court, Northampton County Court, and has now been transferred to the insolvency list in the High Court of Justice in London for the hearing. The hearing is expected to take place in the Spring,” he said. In a ruling in May, a UK High Court judge had refused to overturn a worldwide order freezing Mallya’s assets and upheld an Indian court’s ruling that the consortium of 13 Indian banks was entitled to recover funds amounting to nearly 1.145 billion pounds. TLT LLP has been representing the banks in their efforts to recover their dues as part of the worldwide freezing order, with the bankruptcy petition aimed at seizing his assets to recover dues. Besides SBI, the 13 Indian banks include Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co Pvt Ltd. They have secured follow-on High Court orders to recover some of the funds owed to them as a result of unpaid loans by Mallya’s now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines. Mallya, meanwhile, remains on bail after his extradition was recently ordered by Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, an order which now awaits a sign-off by UK home secretary Sajid Javid. Chief Magistrate, Judge Emma Arbuthnot, had ruled last week that Mallya does have a case to answer in the Indian courts over substantial “misrepresentations” of his financial dealings, in a boost to India’s efforts to bring back the businessman wanted for alleged bank fraud and money laundering charges amounting to an estimated Rs 9,000 crores. “There is clear evidence of dispersal and misapplication of the loan funds and I find a prima facie case the Dr Mallya was involved in a conspiracy to launder money,” the ruling noted. Mallya has indicated that he plans to appeal the verdict in the High Court. “My legal team will review the judgment in detail, consider various options and then I will decide going forward. There is a process ahead,” he told reporters. He will have 14 days to file an appeal once Javid has made his decision on the extradition order, which rarely goes against the Chief Magistrate’s conclusion. In separate legal proceedings, Mallya is also set for a trial in May next year to prevent his posh London home, overlooking Regent’s Park, from foreclosure by Swiss Bank UBS.

Vijay Mallya faces bankruptcy proceedings in UK High Court

A team of officials led by the CBI's Joint Director, S Sai Manohar, left for London Sunday to attend a crucial hearing in the extradition case of embattled liquor baron Vijay Mallya on Monday, sources said.

Manohar will take the place of Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who had been attending the trial till now. The government had sent Asthana on forced leave, divesting him of all powers after he and CBI Director Alok Verma entered in a bitter feud.

Two officials of the Enforcement Directorate are also accompanying the CBI officer, sources said. Manohar is part of the SIT earlier headed by Asthana.

Mallya faces a case of loan default to the tune of Rs 9,000 crore besides allegations of money laundering and diversion of loan funds for purposes other than they were meant for. He is in self-imposed exile in London.

He left for the United Kingdom in March 2016 taking advantage of the dilution in the CBI lookout notice against him.&nbsp;

Indian agencies are seeking to extradite him. The case will be heard by Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on Monday.

Mallya 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 had tweeted earlier.&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;

A team of officials led by the CBI's Joint Director, S Sai Manohar, left for London Sunday to attend a crucial hearing in the extradition case of embattled liquor baron Vijay Mallya on Monday, sources said.

A team of officials led by the CBI's Joint Director, S Sai Manohar, left for London Sunday to attend a crucial hearing in the extradition case of embattled liquor baron Vijay Mallya on Monday, sources said. Manohar will take the place of Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who had been attending the trial till now. The government had sent Asthana on forced leave, divesting him of all powers after he and CBI Director Alok Verma entered in a bitter feud. Two officials of the Enforcement Directorate are also accompanying the CBI officer, sources said. Manohar is part of the SIT earlier headed by Asthana. Mallya faces a case of loan default to the tune of Rs 9,000 crore besides allegations of money laundering and diversion of loan funds for purposes other than they were meant for. He is in self-imposed exile in London. He left for the United Kingdom in March 2016 taking advantage of the dilution in the CBI lookout notice against him. Indian agencies are seeking to extradite him. The case will be heard by Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on Monday. Mallya 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 had tweeted earlier. 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.

Vijay Mallya extradition case: CBI joint director leaves for UK to attend hearing

It is said that money cannot buy happiness but in this case, it can get one a sweet boat, a super yacht that goes by the name of "Luna".&nbsp;

This yacht which rides in the high seas is currently sitting at a&nbsp;dry dock in Dubai. Chelsea's football club owner Roman Abramovich was Luna's previous owner.

However, it is now in the middle of a bitter divorce row. Russian billionaire&nbsp;Farkhad&nbsp;Akhmedov&nbsp;has been rustling with his now divorced wife Tatiana for the luxury yacht.

In 2013, Tatiana had filed for divorce in a UK court, three years later in 2016 the UK high court ordered Farhad to pay $646 million&nbsp;to Tatiana but he refused saying that they got divorced in Russia more than a decade ago.

Unable to enforce their ruling, the judge told Farkhad&nbsp;to hand Luna to Tatiana in April when it was impounded by the Dubai authorities.

In whats considered an open secret&nbsp;Russian oligarch have been parking chunks of their networth in the UK over the past&nbsp;decade in order to stay out of Putin's Russia. In fact, UK has becomes home to many rich people to park their wealth away from Russian authorities.

Reports said Farkhad&nbsp;has never stayed in the United Kingdom over 180 days to evade the tax laws. Farkhad&nbsp;says the case is an attempt by the UK to seize his assets. For the time though Luna's dry spell in Dubai is going to last long for now.&nbsp;

The judge told Farhad to hand Luna to Tatiana in April when it was impounded by the Dubai authorities.

It is said that money cannot buy happiness but in this case, it can get one a sweet boat, a super yacht that goes by the name of "Luna". This yacht which rides in the high seas is currently sitting at a dry dock in Dubai. Chelsea's football club owner Roman Abramovich was Luna's previous owner. However, it is now in the middle of a bitter divorce row. Russian billionaire Farkhad Akhmedov has been rustling with his now divorced wife Tatiana for the luxury yacht. In 2013, Tatiana had filed for divorce in a UK court, three years later in 2016 the UK high court ordered Farhad to pay $646 million to Tatiana but he refused saying that they got divorced in Russia more than a decade ago. Unable to enforce their ruling, the judge told Farkhad to hand Luna to Tatiana in April when it was impounded by the Dubai authorities. In whats considered an open secret Russian oligarch have been parking chunks of their networth in the UK over the past decade in order to stay out of Putin's Russia. In fact, UK has becomes home to many rich people to park their wealth away from Russian authorities. Reports said Farkhad has never stayed in the United Kingdom over 180 days to evade the tax laws. Farkhad says the case is an attempt by the UK to seize his assets. For the time though Luna's dry spell in Dubai is going to last long for now.

Watch: Russian billionaire Akhmedov's luxury yacht in UK divorce settlement row

Liquor baron Vijay Mallya, wanted in India to face charges of fraud and money laundering amounting to around Rs 9,000 crore, can be regarded as a "fugitive from justice", the UK High Court has concluded.

Judge Andrew Henshaw, who upheld a worldwide freeze order and ruled <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/mallya-loses-155-billion-assets-case-in-uk-court-135564">in favour of 13 Indian state-owned banks</a> to recover funds amounting to nearly 1.145 billion pounds in a judgment yesterday, took note of the fact that the 62-year-old businessman is contesting his extradition to India relating to "alleged financial misconduct".

"In all these circumstances, and even taking account of the fact that Dr Mallya is contesting the alleged grounds for extradition, there are grounds for regarding Dr Mallya as a fugitive from justice," the judge said as part of his ruling.

The High Court remained unconvinced by Mallya's claim that he has been a non-resident Indian (NRI) since 1988 and has lived in England since 1992, a country where he has indefinite leave to remain (ILR).

"The evidence indicates that prior to March 2016 Dr Mallya travelled fairly regularly between India and England for business and political reasons. Most of his business interests were in or closely connected with India, most notably United Breweries Group and Kingfisher Airlines?Whilst Dr Mallya has indefinite leave to stay in the UK, he is said to be a non-resident taxpayer," the court observed.

The judge also concluded that the businessman had been in "clear breach" of a Karnataka court's order when he disposed of assets like a historic sword of Tipu Sultan acquired at an auction in 2003.

"The sword of Tipu Sultan is an item of historic importance which Dr Mallya bought at an auction in 2003 for the equivalent of GBP 188,400 and states that he gave away in 2016 as his family members considered that it was bringing him bad luck," Judge Henshaw notes in his judgment.

"Dr Mallya declined to state in correspondence to whom the sword was given. Dr Mallya was unable to put forward any basis for contending that the disposal was not in breach of the Karnataka High Court's interim injunction, and accepted that it occurred after the Supreme Court had made clear that the injunction covered subsequently acquired assets? It does, though, appear to me to have been in clear breach of the Karnataka court's order," he adds.

The judge, however, was less certain that luxury cars and yachts had been undeclared or disposed of by Mallya as claimed by the legal team representing the 13 Indian banks ? State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Corporation bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu &a Kashmir Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt Ltd.

The judge noted: "The Claimants [Indian banks] say there are numerous other assets which have been linked to Dr Mallya in various sources on the internet, but which he denies that he owns. These comprise three yachts, numerous cars and the Mabula Game Reserve in South Africa. 
"The registered/asserted owners are offshore companies and/or trusts. Since these matters are unverified, I do not consider I can take account of them."

Mallya's purchase of a Ferrari 246 GTS with an estimated value of 480,000 pounds was also questioned by the Indian banks. The UK court concluded that it may be the case that the payment of the deposit on the Ferrari was in breach of the Karnataka High Court's interim injunction. 
"However, this point was not the subject of any detailed argument before me and, overall, I do not consider that the matters relating to the Ferrari carry matters any further on this application," the judge concluded.

The ruling by the UK court has been described as "significant" by TLT LLP, the UK law firm which represented the Indian banks in the case.

"This is a positive and big step forward. The judgement enables our client banks to proceed with enforcement of the Indian Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) ruling, which has now been registered and is immediately enforceable," said Paul Gair, partner in TLT's Banking & Financial Services litigation team.

"We are considering all of our options with our clients? the worldwide freezing order has worldwide effect, so it's all of his assets wherever they may be. There are provisions for his weekly allowance, within which he can meet his needs," he added.

Mallya, who remains on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April last year, will return for the last leg of his ongoing extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on July 11, after which the court is expected to set a timeline for judgment in that case.&nbsp

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), representing the Indian government, has claimed it has successfully established a prima facie case of fraud against the businessman.

Mallya has claimed the criminal charges against him are "without substance" and "politically motivated".&nbsp

'Even taking account of the fact that Dr Mallya is contesting the alleged grounds for extradition, there are grounds for regarding Dr Mallya as a fugitive from justice,' Judge Andrew Henshaw said

Liquor baron Vijay Mallya, wanted in India to face charges of fraud and money laundering amounting to around Rs 9,000 crore, can be regarded as a "fugitive from justice", the UK High Court has concluded. Judge Andrew Henshaw, who upheld a worldwide freeze order and ruled in favour of 13 Indian state-owned banks to recover funds amounting to nearly 1.145 billion pounds in a judgment yesterday, took note of the fact that the 62-year-old businessman is contesting his extradition to India relating to "alleged financial misconduct". "In all these circumstances, and even taking account of the fact that Dr Mallya is contesting the alleged grounds for extradition, there are grounds for regarding Dr Mallya as a fugitive from justice," the judge said as part of his ruling. The High Court remained unconvinced by Mallya's claim that he has been a non-resident Indian (NRI) since 1988 and has lived in England since 1992, a country where he has indefinite leave to remain (ILR). "The evidence indicates that prior to March 2016 Dr Mallya travelled fairly regularly between India and England for business and political reasons. Most of his business interests were in or closely connected with India, most notably United Breweries Group and Kingfisher Airlines?Whilst Dr Mallya has indefinite leave to stay in the UK, he is said to be a non-resident taxpayer," the court observed. The judge also concluded that the businessman had been in "clear breach" of a Karnataka court's order when he disposed of assets like a historic sword of Tipu Sultan acquired at an auction in 2003. "The sword of Tipu Sultan is an item of historic importance which Dr Mallya bought at an auction in 2003 for the equivalent of GBP 188,400 and states that he gave away in 2016 as his family members considered that it was bringing him bad luck," Judge Henshaw notes in his judgment. "Dr Mallya declined to state in correspondence to whom the sword was given. Dr Mallya was unable to put forward any basis for contending that the disposal was not in breach of the Karnataka High Court's interim injunction, and accepted that it occurred after the Supreme Court had made clear that the injunction covered subsequently acquired assets? It does, though, appear to me to have been in clear breach of the Karnataka court's order," he adds. The judge, however, was less certain that luxury cars and yachts had been undeclared or disposed of by Mallya as claimed by the legal team representing the 13 Indian banks ? State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Corporation bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu &a Kashmir Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt Ltd. The judge noted: "The Claimants [Indian banks] say there are numerous other assets which have been linked to Dr Mallya in various sources on the internet, but which he denies that he owns. These comprise three yachts, numerous cars and the Mabula Game Reserve in South Africa. "The registered/asserted owners are offshore companies and/or trusts. Since these matters are unverified, I do not consider I can take account of them." Mallya's purchase of a Ferrari 246 GTS with an estimated value of 480,000 pounds was also questioned by the Indian banks. The UK court concluded that it may be the case that the payment of the deposit on the Ferrari was in breach of the Karnataka High Court's interim injunction. "However, this point was not the subject of any detailed argument before me and, overall, I do not consider that the matters relating to the Ferrari carry matters any further on this application," the judge concluded. The ruling by the UK court has been described as "significant" by TLT LLP, the UK law firm which represented the Indian banks in the case. "This is a positive and big step forward. The judgement enables our client banks to proceed with enforcement of the Indian Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) ruling, which has now been registered and is immediately enforceable," said Paul Gair, partner in TLT's Banking & Financial Services litigation team. "We are considering all of our options with our clients? the worldwide freezing order has worldwide effect, so it's all of his assets wherever they may be. There are provisions for his weekly allowance, within which he can meet his needs," he added. Mallya, who remains on bail since his arrest on an extradition warrant in April last year, will return for the last leg of his ongoing extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on July 11, after which the court is expected to set a timeline for judgment in that case. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), representing the Indian government, has claimed it has successfully established a prima facie case of fraud against the businessman. Mallya has claimed the criminal charges against him are "without substance" and "politically motivated".

Vijay Mallya can be regarded as a 'fugitive from justice': UK High Court

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

Vijay Mallya, who is undergoing an extradition trial in a UK court over Rs 9,000-crore fraud and money laundering charges, will face next year a parallel litigation brought by 13 Indian banks to freeze nearly $1.5 billion of his assets.

According to court documents submitted at the UK High Court, the claim brought by the Indian banks against the 61- year-old embattled liquor baron will come up for a hearing in April next year.

&quot;The First Respondent&#39;s (Mallya) application to set aside the Freezing Injunction is to be set down for hearing on the first available date after 11 April 2018 with a time estimate of 2 days,&quot; states the court document.

The litigation in the Queen&#39;s Bench Division of the commercial court in England&#39;s High Court of Justice lists the State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu &amp; Kashmir Bank, Punjab &amp; Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt Ltd as the applicants.

Mallya and related concerns Ladywalk LLP, Rose Capital Ventures Ltd and Orange India Holdings are listed as respondents.

The claim, dated November 23, relates to a judgment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Karnataka dated January 19 this year, which concluded that Mallya was &quot;liable&quot; to the banks in the sum of INR 62,033,503,879.42 plus interest and as at November 22, that judgment sum is &quot;still unsatisfied as to INR 98,530,512,249.42&quot;.

The &quot;freezing order&quot; involves Mallya and related concerns being &quot;restrained until further order, from removing from the jurisdiction any of their assets in the jurisdiction up to a limit of 1,145,000,000 pounds and in any way disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of any of their assets whether they are inside or outside the jurisdiction up to the same value&quot;.

The UK court had upheld the Indian court&#39;&#39;s injunction last week and given Mallya&#39;s lawyers more time to respond due to the ongoing extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates&nbsp;Court, which is now expected to conclude on December 20.

A ruling in the extradition case is expected a few weeks later, by mid-January.

Meanwhile, Mallya remains on a 650,000-pound bail bond since his arrest on an extradition warrant by Scotland Yard in April this year.

Since December 4, he has been in court over five days of hearings to establish if he can be forced to return to India to face charges of fraud and money laundering involving his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines&#39;&nbsp;default of bank loans worth nearly Rs 9,000-crore.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), representing the Indian government, has claimed that the evidence they have presented confirms &quot;dishonesty&quot; on the part of the businessman, who acquired the loans through misrepresentation and had no intentions of repaying them.

Mallya&#39;s defence team has been deposing 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.

The extradition case returns for one of its final hearings today&nbsp;when Judge Emma Arbuthnot is set to hear the testimony of prisons expert Dr Alan Mitchell, who is expected to critique Indian jail conditions as a potential &quot;bar to extradition&quot;.

The CPS will need to demonstrate a prima facie case to show that the criminal charges against Mallya, for which his extradition is sought, are justified.

The defence, on the other hand, will try and prove that the businessman will not get a fair trial in India because the case against him is &quot;politically motivated&quot;.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Mallya remains on a 650,000-pound bail bond since his arrest on an extradition warrant by Scotland Yard in April this year.

Vijay Mallya, who is undergoing an extradition trial in a UK court over Rs 9,000-crore fraud and money laundering charges, will face next year a parallel litigation brought by 13 Indian banks to freeze nearly $1.5 billion of his assets. According to court documents submitted at the UK High Court, the claim brought by the Indian banks against the 61- year-old embattled liquor baron will come up for a hearing in April next year. "The First Respondent's (Mallya) application to set aside the Freezing Injunction is to be set down for hearing on the first available date after 11 April 2018 with a time estimate of 2 days," states the court document. The litigation in the Queen's Bench Division of the commercial court in England's High Court of Justice lists the State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt Ltd as the applicants. Mallya and related concerns Ladywalk LLP, Rose Capital Ventures Ltd and Orange India Holdings are listed as respondents. The claim, dated November 23, relates to a judgment of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Karnataka dated January 19 this year, which concluded that Mallya was "liable" to the banks in the sum of INR 62,033,503,879.42 plus interest and as at November 22, that judgment sum is "still unsatisfied as to INR 98,530,512,249.42". The "freezing order" involves Mallya and related concerns being "restrained until further order, from removing from the jurisdiction any of their assets in the jurisdiction up to a limit of 1,145,000,000 pounds and in any way disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of any of their assets whether they are inside or outside the jurisdiction up to the same value". The UK court had upheld the Indian court''s injunction last week and given Mallya's lawyers more time to respond due to the ongoing extradition trial at Westminster Magistrates Court, which is now expected to conclude on December 20. A ruling in the extradition case is expected a few weeks later, by mid-January. Meanwhile, Mallya remains on a 650,000-pound bail bond since his arrest on an extradition warrant by Scotland Yard in April this year. Since December 4, he has been in court over five days of hearings to establish if he can be forced to return to India to face charges of fraud and money laundering involving his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines' default of bank loans worth nearly Rs 9,000-crore. 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 intentions of repaying them. Mallya's defence team has been deposing 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. The extradition case returns for one of its final hearings today when Judge Emma Arbuthnot is set to hear the testimony of prisons expert Dr Alan Mitchell, who is expected to critique Indian jail conditions as a potential "bar to extradition". The CPS will need to demonstrate a prima facie case to show that the criminal charges against Mallya, for which his extradition is sought, are justified. The defence, on the other hand, will try and prove that the businessman will not get a fair trial in India because the case against him is "politically motivated".

More trouble for Mallya: Indian banks file litigation to freeze assets worth $1.5 billion

A 14-year-old British girl who died after suffering from a rare form of cancer won the right to have her body frozen, the High court of England said on Friday.

The girl from London had written to a judge saying &nbsp;she wanted a chance to &quot;live longer&quot; after suffering from a rare form of cancer.&nbsp; 
After doing research, she decided to undergo cryonics, a process through which people are frozen with the hope they will be brought back to life through future medical advancements.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>&#39;I think being cryo-preserved gives me a chance to be cured and woken up -- even in hundreds of years&#39; time&#39;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text='I think being cryo-preserved gives me a chance to be cured and woken up -- even in hundreds of years' time'" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

&quot;I am only 14-years-old and I don&#39;t want to die but I know I am going to die,&quot; she had said in her letter to the judge, AFP reported.

&quot;I think being cryo-preserved gives me a chance to be cured and woken up -- even in hundreds of years&#39; time.&quot;

The girl filed a case to request that her mother be the only person allowed to make decisions about the disposal of her body.

According to AFP, her &nbsp;parents are divorced and her father initially objected to his daughter&#39;s plan.

Following a private hearing in October at the High Court of England and Wales in London, Judge Peter Jackson ruled in the girl&rsquo;s favour. 
&nbsp; 
AFP reports that the teenager was too ill to attend the hearing and died shortly after that, with her remains being taken to the US and cryogenically frozen.

The girl had reportedly &nbsp;asked that no-one involved in the case be identified and so the case was not disclosed before Friday. Judge Jackson told AFP that his decision was based on the dispute between the girl&#39;s parents and the best outcome for the child&#39;s welfare and not the science itself, in what he described as an &ldquo;unprecedented ruling&rdquo;.

&quot;It is no surprise that this application is the only one of its kind to have come before the courts in this country, and probably anywhere else,&quot; he told AFP.

AFP says that Jackson &nbsp;described the case as a &quot;tragic combination&quot; of childhood illness and family conflict&nbsp;while praising the girl for the &quot;valiant way&quot; she approached the situation.

&nbsp;&quot;It is an example of the new questions that science poses to the law -- perhaps most of all to family law,&quot; Jackson added.

The girl had not met her father in the last eight years. He &nbsp;raised concerns about the costs and consequences of his daughter being frozen, AFP said.

&quot;Even if the treatment is successful and she is brought back to life in, let&#39;s say, 200 years, she may not find any relative and she might not remember things,&quot; he was said to have told Jackson.&nbsp;

However, the father&rsquo;s position changed during the course of the case, saying that he respected his daughter&#39;s decision.&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from AFP) 
&nbsp;

She will be cryo-frozen, in the hope of being brought back to life with the help of future medical advancements

A 14-year-old British girl who died after suffering from a rare form of cancer won the right to have her body frozen, the High court of England said on Friday. The girl from London had written to a judge saying she wanted a chance to "live longer" after suffering from a rare form of cancer. After doing research, she decided to undergo cryonics, a process through which people are frozen with the hope they will be brought back to life through future medical advancements. 'I think being cryo-preserved gives me a chance to be cured and woken up -- even in hundreds of years' time' × "I am only 14-years-old and I don't want to die but I know I am going to die," she had said in her letter to the judge, AFP reported. "I think being cryo-preserved gives me a chance to be cured and woken up -- even in hundreds of years' time." The girl filed a case to request that her mother be the only person allowed to make decisions about the disposal of her body. According to AFP, her parents are divorced and her father initially objected to his daughter's plan. Following a private hearing in October at the High Court of England and Wales in London, Judge Peter Jackson ruled in the girl’s favour. AFP reports that the teenager was too ill to attend the hearing and died shortly after that, with her remains being taken to the US and cryogenically frozen. The girl had reportedly asked that no-one involved in the case be identified and so the case was not disclosed before Friday. Judge Jackson told AFP that his decision was based on the dispute between the girl's parents and the best outcome for the child's welfare and not the science itself, in what he described as an “unprecedented ruling”. "It is no surprise that this application is the only one of its kind to have come before the courts in this country, and probably anywhere else," he told AFP. AFP says that Jackson described the case as a "tragic combination" of childhood illness and family conflict while praising the girl for the "valiant way" she approached the situation. "It is an example of the new questions that science poses to the law -- perhaps most of all to family law," Jackson added. The girl had not met her father in the last eight years. He raised concerns about the costs and consequences of his daughter being frozen, AFP said. "Even if the treatment is successful and she is brought back to life in, let's say, 200 years, she may not find any relative and she might not remember things," he was said to have told Jackson. However, the father’s position changed during the course of the case, saying that he respected his daughter's decision. (WION with inputs from AFP)

Dying 14-yr-old UK girl wins right to have body frozen

uk-high-court

Uk High Court, News on Uk High Court, stories on Uk High Court, articles on Uk High Court, Uk High Court stories at Wion, Uk High Court news, Uk High Court latest news

uk high-court