The Bombay High Court on Thursday observed that fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya was “avoiding the process of the court” and therefore could not seek equitable relief in proceedings initiated by him.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Gautam Ankhad granted Mallya “one last chance” to clarify whether he intends to return to India, warning that his plea would not be heard otherwise.
The court was hearing Mallya’s petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA) and the proceedings declaring him a fugitive economic offender. In December, the bench had made it clear that it would consider his plea only if he returned to India and submitted to its jurisdiction.
The judges said they were inclined to record that Mallya was deliberately evading the court’s process and therefore could not take advantage of equity.
“You have to come back. If you cannot come back, then we cannot hear this plea. You are avoiding the court process, so you cannot take benefit of the proceedings. In fairness to you, we are not dismissing it; we are giving you another opportunity,” the bench said.
Earlier, the court had directed Mallya to file a compliance affidavit stating whether and when he intended to return to India. The bench noted that this direction had not been followed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), argued that Mallya had filed an affidavit disputing banks’ claims and was attempting to convert the matter into recovery proceedings.
Mehta submitted that Mallya challenged the FEOA only after being declared a fugitive and when extradition proceedings in London were at an advanced stage.
He contended that Mallya was free to return to India and raise all his arguments, including on liability, but could not “distrust Indian law” while simultaneously seeking equitable relief from Indian courts.
Senior advocate Amit Desai, representing Mallya, relied on a previous judgment to argue that, given the nature of the statute, his client could be heard without physically returning to India.
However, the bench emphasised that its earlier order requiring a compliance affidavit had not been obeyed. “We never thought that you would not file a compliance affidavit,” the court remarked, adding that it would have to pass orders on the issue of non-compliance.
The judges also noted that Mallya’s argument, that he was entitled to a hearing without physical presence, had already been recorded earlier.
They observed that he could even file an affidavit stating that he would not return, but made it clear that his challenge to the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act would not be entertained unless he submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.
The matter is scheduled for hearing next week, with the bench granting Mallya a final chance to comply.
– Ends
Published By:
Karishma Saurabh Kalita
Published On:
Feb 12, 2026
