London, Feb 6 : The High Court in London on Friday rejected fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi’s plea to delay his trial in the Bank of India unpaid loan case because he is suffering from severe vision loss, clinical depression and prison constraints.
The 54-year-old, fighting extradition to India in the estimated USD 2 billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud and money laundering case, appeared via videolink from HMP Pentonville prison in north London for a pre-trial review in the unrelated USD 8-million Bank of India case.
Judge Simon Tinkler concluded that the prisoner faced no “substantial disadvantage” and would have “equality of opportunity in an adversarial process” for the eight-day trial to proceed, starting March 23.
“Unfortunately, I regard the application that is made as part of a repeated pattern of delay, non-compliance and general muddying of the case by Mr Modi,” Justice Tinkler ruled.
“I appreciate that Mr Modi is in a difficult circumstance, given the constraints imposed on him in prison. This is, however, a situation in which many litigants find themselves… It seems to me that the threshold for adjournment of a trial which is imminent and for which the claimant [Bank of India] has been waiting for many years in order to receive what it says it is entitled to from Mr Modi is not something that should be subject to further delay,” he said.
Barrister James Kinman, who appeared on behalf of Modi for the adjournment application, raised the issue of “prejudice” faced by his client as he continued to struggle with access to court documents since his shift from HMP Thameside prison in south London last October.
He went on to detail that Modi was suffering from “severe vision loss” of 60 per cent of his sight, clinical depression, which prevented him from “concentrating for sustained periods” and until quite recently was forced to share a prison cell with an inmate who slept until noon.
It also emerged in the course of the online hearing that Modi is housed in the education wing of the prison, where he is preoccupied with the preparation for his latest extradition appeal, also expected to be heard in March.
Bank of India barrister Tom Beasley objected to the “ambush application” made at the very last minute before Friday’s hearing, which did not fundamentally alter Modi’s ability to defend himself.
The judge agreed that proper notice had not been given and cautioned that any further applications without material changes of circumstance would “potentially be abuses of the court process”. He also declared the actions of the Prison Service as “wholly unsatisfactory” since the defendant’s move between the two London prisons, which had caused several “knock-on” consequences of paperwork delays in the case.
However, he dismissed attempts by Modi to include a late claim challenging that he ever signed a “personal guarantee” in connection with the Bank of India loan.
The bank has been pursuing this personal guarantee related to a loan to Dubai-incorporated Firestar Diamond FZE.
Modi has chosen to represent himself as a “Litigant in Person” for the trial and is the “only witness of fact” in the case, besides two Indian law experts who will be providing expert evidence on certain technical aspects of the claim.
Modi remains behind bars in London on an extradition warrant executed in March 2019 and has since lost several appeals and attempts at bail.
In December last year, the High Court in London considered his application to reopen the extradition case on the grounds that he faced a risk of torture in India. That hearing was adjourned after the Indian authorities submitted “chunky assurances” to counter the claim.
There are three sets of criminal proceedings against him in India – the Central Bureau of Investigation case of PNB fraud, the Enforcement Directorate case relating to the alleged laundering of the proceeds of that fraud and a third set of criminal proceedings involving alleged interference with evidence and witnesses in the CBI proceedings.
In April 2021, then UK home secretary Priti Patel ordered his extradition to face these charges in the Indian courts after a prima facie case was established against him.
