A London court has ordered fugitive billionaire Nirav Modi to pay more than USD 10.7 million (over Rs 100 crore) to the Bank of India in a loan recovery dispute related to a firm he operated in Dubai.The London Circuit Commercial Court ruled in favour of the bank on Tuesday, holding that Nirav, who was also a prime accused in the Rs 13,000-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) ‘scam’, was responsible for repayment under a personal guarantee he had signed for a loan given to Firestar Diamond FZE, a Firestar Group company based in Dubai.As after borrowing the money, the firm defaulted, the court ruled that Nirav was legally liable for the obligation.The total recoverable amount is more than USD 10.7 million, including the principal outstanding amount of over USD 4.1 million (about Rs 38.9 crore) and any applicable interest claimed by the bank.The dispute stems from a lending facility approved by the bank in 2012, prior to the emergence of claims in the PNB fraud case.On August 3, 2012, Nirav signed a personal guarantee in the bank’s favour, agreeing to personally repay the amount if the borrower didn’t fulfil its commitments.According to the court’s ruling, Firestar Group’s financial situation drastically declined following the discovery of the PNB scam in early 2018.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed its first FIR in relation to the PNB case in February 2018.In accordance with the personal guarantee arrangement, the Bank of India started independent recovery procedures against Nirav when Firestar Diamond FZE defaulted.The bank repeatedly sent demand notifications requesting payment of the unpaid balance. It said no money was received in spite of these efforts.Nirav argued that the personal guarantee could not be enforced and challenged the proceedings before the London court.His legal team argued that the Bank of India did not have enough justification to expedite the loan and pursue fast recovery, nor had it issued a legitimate repayment demand.Additionally, his attorneys contended that because Nirav was not in India throughout the pertinent period, he did not receive letters sent in April 2018 and October 2025.The court determined that the notices had been duly served and rejected those arguments.