UK Court Orders Fugitive Nirav Modi To Pay Bank of India Over Rs 100 Crore

A London court has ordered fugitive diamond businessman Nirav Modi to pay $10.7 million to Bank of India, adding a fresh financial setback to the jeweller's long-running legal battles in the United Kingdom and India. The ruling relates to loans extended more than a decade ago to Diamond FZE, a Dubai-based company owned by Modi.

Judge Simon Tinkler of the London Circuit Commercial Court held that Bank of India's claim was valid and enforceable. The court found Modi liable under a personal guarantee linked to loans provided by the bank in July 2012. Modi had signed the personal guarantee in August 2013, making him responsible for repayment if the borrower defaulted.

Nirav Modi held liable under personal guarantee

The court said Modi must pay the principal amount due of $4.1 million, with interest added according to the bank's calculation. The total liability has been assessed at $10.7 million, which is around ₹100 crore. The ruling is significant because it deals with a separate recovery claim, apart from the larger fraud case pending against him in India.

During the proceedings, Modi challenged the enforceability of the guarantee. He argued that he had not received valid demands from Bank of India. He also claimed that there was no material adverse effect that justified termination of the loan facility. The court rejected these arguments and found that the bank was entitled to recover the amount.

"Mr Modi is liable under the personal guarantee to the bank for the principal amount due of $4.1 million. The interest calculated on the basis set out by the bank is to be added. Mr Modi has not provided any defence to explain why the bank was not entitled to that sum," Judge Tinkler said in the ruling.

The order strengthens Bank of India's position in pursuing recovery from Modi's overseas assets and obligations. For Indian public sector banks, such foreign court rulings are important because many high-value loan and fraud cases involve companies, guarantees or assets spread across jurisdictions.

How the Bank of India case differs from the PNB fraud case

The London order is connected to a loan transaction involving Diamond FZE in Dubai. It is not the same as the Punjab National Bank fraud case, though both involve Modi's business network. The Bank of India matter centres on contractual liability under a personal guarantee, while the PNB case involves allegations of large-scale banking fraud.

Personal guarantees are common in corporate lending, especially when banks extend credit to privately held companies. They allow lenders to pursue the guarantor if the borrowing entity fails to repay. In Modi's case, the London court found that the guarantee remained enforceable and that the bank's demand for repayment was legally valid.

The decision also comes at a time when Indian authorities continue efforts to bring Modi back to India. He has been held in a UK jail since his arrest on March 19, 2019. His extradition has been approved at earlier stages, but the matter has remained caught in further legal proceedings.

India's Ministry of External Affairs has maintained that the government is committed to securing his return. In April, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India remained in touch with the UK side on the extradition request and was committed to ensuring that fugitives face Indian law.

Extradition fight continues in the UK

Modi's extradition was ordered by the UK Home Secretary in 2021 after a British court found that he had a case to answer in India. Since then, his legal team has pursued multiple challenges. In March, the UK High Court rejected his petition to reopen his case against extradition.

That petition referred to a February 2025 judgment in the extradition matter of defence consultant Sanjay Bhandari. Modi's lawyers sought to rely on concerns raised in that case. The High Court, however, rejected his attempt to revive the extradition challenge, placing weight on assurances given by the Indian government.

In April, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg granted Modi anonymity in proceedings before it. That development meant details of that case were taken away from public scrutiny. It did not amount to a final decision on extradition, but it showed that Modi's legal strategy remains active in Europe.

Modi, once known internationally for his luxury jewellery brand, has been declared a fugitive in India. The Enforcement Directorate and Central Bureau of Investigation have pursued cases against him over the alleged Punjab National Bank fraud. His uncle Mehul Choksi is also an accused in the matter and is currently lodged in a Belgian prison.

The PNB case, estimated at about ₹13,000 crore, became one of India's most closely watched banking scandals. According to the CBI, Modi alone is accused of siphoning off ₹6,498.20 crore from the total misappropriated amount. The alleged fraud involved fraudulent letters of undertaking and credit facilities issued through the bank's Brady House branch in Mumbai.

For the banking sector, the London ruling is another reminder of how recovery in large financial cases can continue through civil claims even while criminal proceedings remain unresolved. It also shows how guarantees signed by promoters can become enforceable liabilities years after the original loan was granted.

Modi remains in custody in the UK as the extradition process continues. The Bank of India order does not decide the criminal allegations against him in India, but it gives the lender a clear civil judgment for recovery. The broader legal battle will now depend on the remaining proceedings in the UK and Europe.