London: A fresh trial against fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi started in the High Court in London on Monday. Bank of India, one of the banks he owes money to, had moved court seeking to encash Modi’s personal guarantee tied to a multimillion-dollar lending facility.
The bank is seeking to recover the money from Modi personally under a series of loan agreements, and alleges that he defaulted on a USD 5 million overdraft facility originally agreed upon in 2012, which now exceeds $10.7 million.
Modi’s legal team, in turn, argued that the bank’s claim was “riddled with deficiencies and flaws” and should be dismissed. Vivek Kapoor, representing Nirav Modi, told the court that the personal guarantee underpinning the claim is unenforceable, citing alleged legal defects, improper invocation, and non-compliance with regulatory requirements under Indian law.
The court was informed that the issue of witnesses appearing from India was still to be resolved as permission from the Bombay High Court was awaited as per the protocol. Both the sides have witnesses in India who are slated to give evidence in the matter. Tom Beasly, the barrister for BOI, said they are confident of obtaining the necessary permission from the Bombay High court on Tuesday.
The court also heard from Jack Pestill and Milan Kapadia from the bank’s legal team who were cross examined by Vivek Kapoor on the issue of postage and delivery of demand notice to Nirav Modi. Central to the dispute is whether the bank validly issued and served a demand notice in April 2018, which the defence says cannot be proven. Without valid service, Modi’s lawyers argue, no liability under the guarantee can arise. They further claim that no proper “event of default” occurred at the time, undermining the bank’s right to demand repayment.
{{/usCountry}}The court also heard from Jack Pestill and Milan Kapadia from the bank’s legal team who were cross examined by Vivek Kapoor on the issue of postage and delivery of demand notice to Nirav Modi. Central to the dispute is whether the bank validly issued and served a demand notice in April 2018, which the defence says cannot be proven. Without valid service, Modi’s lawyers argue, no liability under the guarantee can arise. They further claim that no proper “event of default” occurred at the time, undermining the bank’s right to demand repayment.
{{/usCountry}}The BOI presented 16 issues for determination before the court, and it maintains that the borrower’s outstanding liabilities remain significant and enforceable. The defence challenged the bank’s reliance on the underlying facility agreement, asserting that Modi’s obligations are strictly limited to the terms of the guarantee itself. Additional arguments included that the guarantee may be void under foreign exchange regulations and that subsequent contractual changes discharged Modi from liability.
Over the next few days the court is expected to examine complex issues of contract interpretation, service of notice, and cross-border enforceability.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.