Bank of India wins Rs 100 crore case against Nirav Modi

Bank of India wins Rs 100 crore case against Nirav Modi

LONDON: A London High Court judge on Tuesday ruled in favor of Bank of India, saying fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi owed the public sector bank more than $10.7 million (a little over Rs 100 crore).Simon Tinkler, delivering the verdict in the London Circuit Commercial Court on Tuesday, said: “Mr Modi is liable under the bank’s personal guarantee for the principal amount of $4.1 million (about Rs 38.9 crore). Interest is to be calculated on a basis determined by the bank. Mr Modi has provided no defense to explain why the bank was not entitled to that amount.”Nirav, who is being held in a London jail pending extradition to India, had argued in the suit that the guarantee was unenforceable, he had never received a valid demand from the bank, and no adverse effect would justify terminating the loan.Bank of India had lent some funds to one of Nirav’s companies, Firestar Diamond FZE in Dubai, in July 2012. Nirav had given a personal guarantee for this on August 3, 2013.In early 2018, when news of alleged fraud by Nirav in Punjab National Bank spread, Bank of India decided to withdraw the loan. Demands sent to Firestar and Nirav in March and April 2018 remained unanswered.On March 8, 2024, Bank of India obtained summary judgment for the principal amount of $4.1 million plus interest. The bank fulfilled another demand on Nirav in October 2025.Tinkler said, “As of mid-February 2018, it was reasonable to anticipate that the borrower and each of the Firestar Group companies was likely to be materially and negatively affected by the alleged PNB fraud” and “the value of the guarantee provided by Mr Modi … was likely to be substantially affected.” He explained how on February 17, 2018, Nirav had sent an email to the bank which said: “…media frenzy led to immediate search and seizure of operations, resulting in effective closure of Firestar International Pvt Ltd and Firestar Diamond International Pvt Ltd. This has put our ability to repay the group’s dues to the banks at risk.At trial Nirav denied receiving the April 2018 and October 2025 demands, saying he was not in India at the time, but Tinkler said he was satisfied that both had been handed over to him, not least because the October demand was also sent to HMP Thameside, where he was living, and Nirav provided a copy of the April 2018 demand to his solicitors in 2019. Did. Tinkler found the guarantee enforceable.

Zeen Subscribe
A customizable subscription slide-in box to promote your newsletter
[mc4wp_form id="314"]