Mumbai: UK-based businessman Vijay Mallya on Wednesday informed the Bombay High Court that he is not in a position to specify when he would return to India. He cited restrictions imposed by courts in England that he said prevented him from leaving the country.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, in connection with two petitions filed by Mallya. One petition challenges his designation as a “Fugitive Economic Offender” under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA), while the other contests a court order formally declaring him a fugitive.
Senior advocate Amit Desai, appearing for Mallya, referred to Supreme Court judgments where writ petitions were heard even in the absence of petitioners.
He submitted that extradition proceedings against Mallya are ongoing in the UK and that his client is aware of them but is unable to leave English jurisdiction due to binding court orders.
The Chief Justice, however, questioned Mallya’s intent to appear before the court, observing that he appeared to be relying on UK court orders without clarifying whether those orders had been challenged. The Bench indicated that such reliance could not be treated as a blanket justification.
The court directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to file a response to Mallya’s affidavit. It also asked Desai to submit a detailed affidavit placing on record all statements made during the hearing so that the Union of India could respond accordingly.
Granting three weeks’ time for further proceedings, the Bench noted that the petitions have been pending since 2019 and remarked that no sincere efforts appeared to have been made for their early disposal. The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on March 11.
According to the Finance Ministry, Mallya — former promoter of Kingfisher Airlines — is among 15 individuals declared Fugitive Economic Offenders as of October 31, 2025, allegedly causing losses of thousands of crores of rupees to Indian banks.
Earlier, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitted before the court that Mallya had filed affidavits disputing banks’ claims and was attempting to turn money laundering proceedings into recovery litigation. The agency further argued that he challenged the FEO declaration only after being declared a fugitive and when extradition proceedings in London had reached an advanced stage.
