Trial against fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya, to prove a prima facie case of fraud resumed in London on Monday. The former Kingfisher Airlines owner is expected at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London for the fourth day of the hearing as his defence, led by barrister Clare Montgomery, is set to depose two further witnesses in its attempt to prove the alleged default of £900 million was a result of business failure rather than “dishonest” and fraudulent activity by the 'King of Good Times'.
In a double whammy, Mallya also faces parallel litigation in the Queen's Bench Division of the commercial court in England's High Court of Justice brought by a group of Indian banks to freeze his assets. A consortium of banks like the 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, led by the State Bank of India, are registered applicants of the claim. Mallya's lawyers have been granted an extension to respond to the case due to the severity of his ongoing extradition trial which is expected to conclude on Thursday.
Meanwhile, Margaret Sweeney from Force India- Mallya's Formula 1 racing team, and legal expert Martin Lau were deposed by Montgomery and team at the extradition hearing. Lau was asked his views on the way the allegations of fraud against the Kingfisher chief have been dealt with by the media. An expert on South Asian law, he said, “There is an increasing concern in India about media trials, which is connected with a change in the landscape in India where TV channels use panel discussions and such like... there is an emergence of powerful TV commentators.” Referring to the Delhi High Court's setting up of a committee to look into “trial by media”, he said adverse media coverage might affect aspects of a trial and provide the police an incentive to achieve “overnight fame”. “It is evident from the TV cameras outside this court that there is intense interest in India in this case.”
Arguing on behalf of the Indian government, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) asserted that India has a “free and animated press” that was understandably interested in this case, which involves “substantial state funds” going missing. Barrister Mark Summers pointed out that Mallya would have recourse to legal remedies in the country if he felt his prospects of a fair trial were endangered. He challenged the legal expert to agree that there was “increased awareness” about the impact media coverage of a case could have on a trial and that the courts of India were “conscious” of the issue.
Lau, however, insisted that any such steps were “insufficiently robust” on being able to clampdown on the problem, claiming that many of the media reports around the Mallya case in India would not have been allowed in the UK or any other jurisdiction.
