MUST READ | 'Legally prohibited from leaving UK': Vijay Mallya says Indian govt 'grossly unjust' to him
Mallya has sought closure of the long-pending case before the High Court, arguing that his civil liabilities have been settled. His lawyers claimed that the consortium recovered around ₹15,000 crore against an original claim of about ₹6,203 crore, including interest.
The ED rejected the argument that this recovery makes the criminal proceedings redundant. While the amount recovered may affect the calculation of outstanding civil dues, it does not determine whether the alleged scheduled offences or money laundering have been established, the agency said.
DON'T MISS | 'Indian debt resolution justice...': Vijay Mallya takes a swipe after Subhash Chandra's settlement
The ED also noted Mallya’s continued absence from India and failure to submit to the jurisdiction of the competent criminal court. "His continued absence and conduct, therefore, remain relevant to the overall factual background of the present proceedings," the agency added.
The agency stated that assets worth approximately ₹14,131.60 crore had been restored or handed over to the SBI-led consortium through orders passed during the restoration process by a special PMLA court in Mumbai.
According to the ED, restoration of assets under Section 8(8) of the PMLA is a statutory mechanism for restitution and does not determine whether a scheduled offence or money laundering has occurred. Therefore, subsequent recovery or restoration of assets cannot extinguish or render pending PMLA proceedings infructuous.
MUST READ | ‘Time to move on’: Bombay High Court to Vijay Mallya, SBI as ₹15,000 crore recovery takes centre stage
Mallya has been in the UK since leaving India in 2016 and was declared a fugitive economic offender in 2019. His broader legal battle also includes a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act and proceedings declaring him a fugitive economic offender.
The High Court recently gave Mallya a final opportunity to clarify whether he intends to return to India and submit to its jurisdiction. The matter is expected to be considered further after the court examines the ED’s stand and the status of proceedings against him.