The Mehul Choksi case moved closer to a decision on Tuesday after a special court in Mumbai reserved its ruling on the Enforcement Directorate’s request to declare the fugitive diamond merchant a fugitive economic offender and seize his assets.
Mumbai | September 9, 2026 — The court also expressed dissatisfaction over the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, observing that a matter filed seven to eight years ago could not remain unresolved indefinitely, according to a report by Loksatta – Mumbai.
The Enforcement Directorate filed its application in July 2018 under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, seeking to have Choksi declared a fugitive economic offender. The agency also sought permission to attach or confiscate his properties under the law.
The hearing on the application remained pending after Choksi challenged the proceedings. He filed an application before the special court and a petition before the Bombay High Court, alleging procedural defects in the Enforcement Directorate’s application. The court’s latest decision to reserve its ruling followed arguments on those issues.
Choksi’s lawyers sought additional time to make further submissions, but the special court rejected that request before reserving its decision. The court has not yet announced when the ruling will be delivered.
Choksi, 65, is a principal accused in the Punjab National Bank loan fraud case, which also involves his nephew and diamond merchant Nirav Modi. The alleged banking fraud has been described in the report as involving approximately Rs 13,000 crore.
Choksi was arrested in Belgium after Indian investigative agencies made an extradition request. He subsequently approached the special court, seeking cancellation of the proceedings initiated to declare him a fugitive economic offender. In his application, he argued that he had been arrested in Belgium in connection with pending cases in India and that he was contesting the extradition proceedings there. He also claimed that he could not return to India while the legal proceedings in Belgium were continuing.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed Choksi’s plea, arguing that proceedings to declare an accused a fugitive economic offender can be cancelled only after the person appears before the court. Since Choksi has not appeared before the special court, the agency maintained that the action against him could not be withdrawn at this stage. The agency also argued that his application had no merit and should be dismissed.
Under the legal framework invoked by the Enforcement Directorate, a declaration as a fugitive economic offender can have consequences for the accused’s assets and related proceedings. However, the Mumbai court’s ruling on the agency’s application remains pending, and no final declaration has been issued in the matter as of the latest report.
