MUMBAI: Vijay Mallya, founder of the defunct Kingfisher Airlines, is “unable to precisely state when he will return to India”, his solicitors said in a statement before Bombay HC.
He is entitled to challenge the validity of Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act provisions without being in India and, following orders passed by courts in England, he is “not permitted to leave or attempt to leave England and Wales, or apply for or be in possession of any international travel document”, the statement added.
Senior counsel Amit Desai for Mallya tendered the statement submitted by his solicitors, Kanga and Company, before Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad. The bench remarked that the note was not a signed affidavit.
The Union home ministry, in a fresh affidavit on Tuesday, however, said Mallya’s affidavit dated Feb 10 was not in conformity with HC’s Dec order asking him when he would return to India.
The affidavit, affirmed in London, says he made bona fide offers of settlement and the Union finance ministry’s disclosure in Lok Sabha in Dec of Rs 15,006 crore recovered by banks against Kingfisher Airlines’ borrowings made the recovery in excess of the Rs 6,200 crore debt recorded by Debt Recovery Tribunal in 2017.
Mallya’s petition challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of FEO Act could be heard even when he was not in India, said the statement of Feb 18, citing a Nov 2025 top court order permitting those declared FEOs and absconders to be represented by lawyers in India while being physically outside the country.
Mallya’s lawyers also said his petitions – one challenging the special trial court order dubbing him an FEO and the other challenging FEO provisions – needed to be heard separately.
The Centre, represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta and ASG Anil Singh, accompanied by ED’s counsel Prashant Mishra said Mallya had been absconding since March 2, 2016. He was declared a “fugitive offender” by the special court in Jan 2019, following which extradition proceedings stood initiated and are at an advanced stage in the UK.
Mehta said once Mallya was extradited, or chose to return, he would be strictly dealt with under Indian laws and the Constitution.
The HC, which at one point was inclined to dismiss Mallya’s petition, did not do so after Desai persuaded it not to, and contended that Mallya’s assets were seized and, even in England, he was not allowed to leave the country or hold a passport.
The HC then directed Mallya to file a fresh affidavit reiterating the written statement, as well as comprehensively showcasing such orders passed by courts in England. ED is to file its affidavit in rejoinder thereafter. The HC posted the matter to March 11. It also orally remarked that Mallya took no steps since the filing of his petition in 2019 to get it heard.
