Major Legal Setback for Nirav Modi in the UK; Ordered to Pay Over ₹100 Crore in Bank Fraud Case

New Delhi. Fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi has suffered a major setback from a British court. The British High Court has ordered him to pay a sum exceeding ₹100 crore, holding him liable based on a personal guarantee in a bank fraud case. This court ruling has further compounded Nirav Modi’s legal troubles.

In his order, High Court Judge Simon Tinkler stated that the personal guarantee provided by Nirav Modi is valid and enforceable. According to reports, the outstanding principal amount is US$ 4.1 million (approximately ₹38.9 crore); with the addition of interest, the total liability could exceed ₹100 crore.

No substantive explanation was presented by Nirav Modi or his lawyers during the hearing. The defense argued that the guarantee in question was unenforceable and that he had never received the demand notices sent by the bank.

The case stems from a loan granted in July 2012 by the Bank of India to Firestar Diamond FZE, Nirav Modi’s Dubai-based company. Subsequently, on August 3, 2013, Nirav Modi provided a personal guarantee for this loan.

Bank of India initiated loan recovery proceedings after the alleged scam involving Punjab National Bank came to light in 2018. Notices were sent to the company and Nirav Modi in March and April 2018, but no response was received. Later, on March 8, 2024, the bank secured a summary judgment for the recovery of the principal amount and interest. Additionally, another demand letter had been sent to Nirav Modi in October 2025. In his ruling, Judge Tinkler noted that all companies within the Firestar Group had been affected by a financial crisis following February 2018. He also cited an email sent by Nirav Modi to the bank on February 17, 2018, in which the businessman acknowledged that his business operations had been impacted by the controversy that had erupted in the media and admitted to facing difficulties in repaying bank liabilities.

Although Nirav Modi claimed in court that he had not received the demand notices sent in 2018 and 2025, the court rejected this claim based on the available evidence. The judge held that he had duly received both notices and, on that basis, declared the personal guarantee to be fully effective and enforceable.