TOI Correspondent from London: A London high court judge on Friday refused fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi permission to adjourn his trial against Bank of India who are pursuing him for $8 million (about Rs 72.5 crore) claiming he gave a personal guarantee on a loan the bank gave to his company, Firestar Diamond FZE, in Dubai.
Deputy high court judge Simon Tinkler also refused Nirav’s attempt to amend his defence at the eleventh hour, saying “further applications without a material change in circumstances could be an abuse of court process”.
Nirav (54), who is wanted in India for large-scale fraud, appeared from Pentonville Prison via video link looking the worse for wear. He denies he owes the bank anything and a trial is scheduled to start at the London circuit commercial court on March 23.
Nirav’s barrister, James Kinman, made an application to adjourn saying his client had inadequate time to prepare. “He has severe visual impairment and his ability to read is 60% of what it was. He has clinical depression. There is lots of noise outside his cell. He doesn’t have access to a computer and until Jan 17 had to share his cell with a cellmate who slept till noon and couldn’t start work until midday,” Kinman said.
Kinman also said the amount of time Nirav could work on this trial was constrained by “pressing demands” on his time by the reopening of his extradition case, the hearing for which is listed for mid-March.
“He regards that, not unreasonably, as a matter of life and death. He says, if extradited to India, he is at real risk of torture or death and the fact the court is entertaining those proceedings means those concerns have to be rated as credible,” Kinman said.
Tom Beasley, representing the Bank of India, said: “If there is an adjournment we would say no more than a few months. If it was a year, there is a likelihood of him being extradited in that time,” he said.
Nirav applied the day before Friday’s hearing to add extra points to his defence, including that he didn’t sign the personal guarantee and his signature may have been forged, and a “generalised assertion that the govt of India has caused this”.
Tinkler refused the applications to amend and adjourn saying they were “part of a repeated pattern of delay, non-compliance and general muddying of the case by Mr Modi”.
