Vijay Mallya's extradition ordered without referring to all evidences: Lawyer tell UK court
New Delhi : Vijay Mallya's counsel Clare Montgomery on Tuesday told the Royal Court of Justice that his client's extradition was ordered in 2018 by the Westminster Magistrates Court's Chief Magistrate Judge Emma Arbuthnot without taking in account all the evidences.
Clare made these remarks during the hearing of an appeal by Vijay Mallya against Westminster Magistrates Court's order to extradite him to India to face an alleged case of fraud and money laundering.
Clare clarified to the court that the judge Emma Arbuthnot reached to the conclusion without referring all the evidences in the matter.
He claimed that the ruling came after finding merit in the charges of fraud, money laundering registered against Vijay Mallya by India and rejected Mallya's contention that he ran out of India under "a real risk of suffering a flagrant denial of justice".
In her ruling, Judge Arbuthnot said: "I find that the allegations set out in the Request are extradition offenses within the meaning of Section 137(3) of the Extradition Act 2003."
Clare claimed: "The statement by Magistrate Judge Emma Arbuthnot was incorrect. As you know that Magistrates Court Judge said she was not going to consider all the evidence against him and his favour but 'I am going to see whether it is a prima facie case'."
"District Judge requires all of the evidence rather than some of the evidence. She reached the conclusion that Kingfishers and its representative had misrepresented the accounts. When the two figures mentioned are actually the pre-taxed and post taxed figures. She didn't look at them because they weren't included in the Government of India's papers."
Clare told the judge that the Arbuthnot missed a lot of the evidence. "Had she taken all of the evidence into account it would have altered the decision she made."
The judge in the case interfered and said that he does not think that the district judge had not taken all the evidences into consideration.
Clare then replied by saying that Emma considered entirely selective evidence of emails between the bank and Kingfisher. Judge asked if Clare thinks that the emails are fake. The Mallya counsel denied.
"I am not saying they are fake but they are incapable of bearing weight," she said.
Clare said the District Judge failed to understand the relevance of what was being said in the emails. "E-mails are but a small part of what happened between the banks and Kingfisher. There were also meetings between Mallya and the banks' officials and KFA officials. The real objection we have is although we see at para 67-68 she accurately identifies part of the least of the task that confronts her."