The trial, however, was briefly halted as the courtroom had to be evacuated due to a fire alarm. The 61-year-old tycoon and others waited outside the Westminster magistrates court during the fire drill.
The trial began with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), arguing on behalf of the Indian government, presenting its opening arguments in the case which focussed on loans totalling around Rs 2,000 crores sought by the erstwhile Kingfisher Airlines from a consortium of Indian banks.
"The focus of our case will be on his (Mallyas) conduct and how he misled the bank and misused the proceeds," said CPS barrister Mark Summers. He then went on to lay out a detailed chronology of events, with specific focus on a loan sought by Kingfisher Airlines from IDBI bank in November 2009.
The loan sought amounted initially to Rs 950 crores but was later reduced to Rs 750 crores, after it had received Rs 200 crores from UCO bank.
The CPS noted that in all the loans sought, "loss-making" Kingfisher Airlines had relied on nearly the same set of security pledges, which included the UB Groups reputation, Kingfishers own "brand value", a promised infusion of equity funds and a projected return to profit by the airline by February 2011.
"The airline had claimed that it had put proactive measures in place to improve performance," the CPS noted.
However, it was also a time when according to an industry analysis, the state of the airline industry was described as "grim" and as being in "intensive care".
Court was told that loans acquired in the name of rescuing Kingfisher Airlines were in fact used to pay off other debts, including paying the rent on a corporate jet "owned by Kingfisher but operated for the defendant's (Mallya) own benefit".
The CPS presented an email written by Mallya in December 2009 justifying the use of loans to "achieve round robins", confirming that he was open to using money received from banks for Kingfisher Airlines to repay other banks to settle overdue bills and charges.
The first day of the trial is expected to be taken up entirely by the CPS setting out the Indian governments prima facie case against Mallya, a fact that was not welcomed by his defence team.
Mallya's barrister, Clare Montgomery, told the judge that she had hoped to set out the defences opening arguments on the first day as well.
But the CPS said it will "not be rushed" as it lays out the complete chronology of events.
Meanwhile, Mallya watched the proceedings from behind a glass-windowed dock.
However,the judge has directed that a table be provided to Mallya for easier access to his paperwork.
Earlier, Mallya looked relaxed when he entered the court to stand trial on charges of fraud and money laundering related to his erstwhile Kingfisher Airlines owing several Indian banks around Rs 9,000 crores.
"These (allegations against me) are false, fabricated and baseless," Mallya told reporters outside the court ahead of the hearing.
Mallya, who has been out on bail since Scotland Yard executed an extradition warrant in April this year, will be in the dock for the duration of the trial scheduled to end on December 14.
A judgement in the case, being presided over by Judge Emma Louise Arbuthnot, is unlikely until early next year.
The CPS will need to demonstrate a prima facie case by producing evidence to show that the criminal charges against Mallya are justified and that he should be extradited to face the Indian courts.
The tycoonhas been on self-imposed exile in the UK since he left India on March 2, 2016.
While on strict bailconditions, which includeproviding a bail bond worth 650,000 pounds, surrender of his passport and a ban on possessing any travel documents, the former Rajya Sabha memberhas been based at his Hertfordshire estate Ladywalk in the village of Tewin, nearly 50-km from London.
The CPS had presented "supplemental" charges of money laundering to previous charges of fraud against the businessman at an earlier hearing in October.
If the judge rules in favour of extradition at the end of the trial, the UKhome secretary must orderMallyas extradition within two months.
However, the case can go through a series of appeals in higher UK courts before arriving at a conclusion.
Judge Arbuthnot and her colleague, Rebecca Crane, at Westminster Magistrates Court have recently rejected two other long-pending extradition requests from India.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
