- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court Rejects Vijay Mallya’s Plea Against Orders Passed Against Him Under Fugitive Economic Offenders Act
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Bombay High Court has refused to grant a stay on proceedings before a special court about confiscation of properties of embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya.It has dismissed an application filed by Mallya recently, seeking a stay on the proceedings before the special court hearing cases pertaining to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).In his application,...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant a stay on proceedings before a special court about confiscation of properties of embattled liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya.
It has dismissed an application filed by Mallya recently, seeking a stay on the proceedings before the special court hearing cases pertaining to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
In his application, Mallya had sought a stay on the proceedings, or that any decision or order passed by the lower court during the proceedings shall be subject to the final decision on his second petition challenging the validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act itself vis-à-vis the constitution.
Earlier on January 5, a special court had declared Mallya a fugitive economic offender after which it began proceedings to confiscate his properties.
Incidentally, Mallya, who currently resides in the United Kingdom, has been charged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of defaulting on bank loans of Rs 9,000 crore.
However, Mallya contended that the act provides for drastic measures like seizing all assets after a mere declaration of the person as a fugitive offender by a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court.
His lawyer had argued that the provision to confiscate all assets of the person, irrespective of whether those assets are connected with the alleged offence or not, was nothing short of an “economic death penalty”, but the court rejected that argument and refused to entertain Mallya’s plea.