Vijay Mallya appeared before the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Wednesday for the second day of his appeal to the High Court against extradition to India, during which the prosecution highlighted "overwhelming evidence of dishonesty" by the former Kingfisher Airlines chief.
64-year-old Mallya is being sought in India for fraud and money laundering of what is said to be rupees 9,000 in unpaid bank loans.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), appearing in court on behalf of the Indian government, contradicted the claims that there was no prima facie evidence against Mr. Mallya.
"There is enough on the 32,000 pages of all evidence to meet the (extradition) contractual obligations and there is one case to be answered," CPS lawyer Mark Summers told the court when he started filing, that will end on Thursday.
Mr. Mallya was in the public gallery when his legal team highlighted the widespread problems facing the aerospace industry in India, including another collapsed company Jet Airways.
"Let's hear the arguments in court," he said as he entered the courtroom.
Lord Justice Stephen Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing, the two-part bank that negotiated the appeal, initially confirmed that they would not deliver their verdict immediately after the hearing, which was scheduled until Thursday.
At the beginning of the second day of the appeal, Mr. Mallya's lawyer, Clare Montgomery, affirmed the central defense that there had been no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of her client and that Kingfisher Airlines, among other airlines, had been the victim of an economic disaster.
"The aerospace industry is dotted with examples of weakening airlines that are supported for strategic reasons," said Ms. Montgomery.
She has focused her arguments on trying to detect "multiple mistakes" in Supreme Judge Emma Arbuthnot's judgment in favor of her client's extradition in December 2018, and checked a number of bank statements and balance sheets that were made available to Indian banks to provide credit as evidence to look for full disclosure.
"There is not just a pretense, but overwhelming evidence of dishonesty … and given the amount and depth of evidence the District Judge (Arbuthnot) had before her, the verdict is comprehensive and detailed, with the strange mistake, but nothing "What that at first glance," said Summers, who questioned the defense arguments for misrepresentation at the banks.
Judge Irwin reiterated Ms. Montgomery's earlier claim that this was a "very dense case" and until Monday asked the defense team for a detailed chronology and a list of documents before considering their verdict.
On Tuesday, Ms. Montgomery opened her case to conclude that Mr. Mallya had no fraudulent intentions when applying for bank loans for his now deceased Kingfisher Airlines because he was not a "night flyer" but an extremely wealthy man who was not you operate any kind of "Ponzi program", but a reputable airline that has experienced an economic disaster along with other Indian airlines.
"She (Arbuthnot) didn't examine all the evidence because if she had, she wouldn't have gotten into the many mistakes that pervade her judgment," she said.
Representatives of the enforcement agency (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Indian High Commission in London were present in court.
Mr. Mallya had been given permission to appeal against his extradition order, signed by former British Home Secretary Sajid Javid last February, for only one reason that would challenge the Indian government's prima facie evidence of fraudulent intentions to acquire bank loans ,
At the end of a one-year extradition process to Westminster Magistrates’s Court in London in December 2018, Judge Arbuthnot had found "clear evidence of the sharing and misuse of the loan funds" and accepted a pretense of fraud and a conspiracy to launder money against Mallya, as presented by the CPS on behalf of the Indian government.
Mr. Mallya has been on bail since he was arrested for an extradition order in April 2017 that includes a £ 650,000 bond and other travel restrictions while contesting this decision.