Vijay Mallya’s first extradition appeal rejected

Vijay Mallya, the former head of United Spirits, has until the end of this week to file a new appeal against being extradited to India to face charges of fraud and money laundering, after his first was rejected last week.

(Photo: Wiki)

The High Court in London has rejected his first initial appeal following Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s upholding of the order issued by Westminster Magistrates Court in early December. Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot found that Vijay Mallya has a case to over substantial “misrepresentations” of his financial dealings

Mallya, the former head of United Spirits, is wanted to face trial over debts of some £1.15 billion associated with the failure in 2012 of his Kingfisher Airlines venture. In India, the authorities have already seized assets owned or controlled by Mallya worth approximately £1.5 billion.

However, they stress that enforced repayment of Mallya’s debts does not absolve him of the alleged criminal activities.

Mallya maintains that he always intended to repay his debts and that he has made full proposals to do so. He alleges he is being made a scapegoat by the Delhi government.

The news agency PTI has reported a court official as saying: “The application for permission to appeal was refused by Justice William Davis on April 5. The appellant has five business days to apply for oral consideration. If a renewal application is made, it will be listed before a High Court judge.”

If Mallya makes a further appeal it will take the form of a brief oral hearing at which legal teams for both sides will restate their cases.

If that fails, Mallya will have little further room to delay extradition. In India many commentators suggest that he is trying to do so until this month’s general elections are concluded in the hope that a change of government will alter attitudes to him.

In separate proceedings in London Mallya’s global assets have been frozen, with his lawyers suggesting he is willing to cut his spending to £29,000 a month compared with the £18,300 a week previously sanctioned by the court.