Fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi has been ordered by a London court to pay Bank of India more than $11.5 million, including accrued interest, in connection with a personal guarantee linked to a loan extended to one of his Dubai-based firms.

In a significant ruling delivered by the London Circuit Commercial Court, Justice Simon Tinkler held that Modi remained liable under the personal guarantee issued for a loan granted to Firestar Diamond FZE, a Dubai-incorporated company associated with him. The court rejected Modi’s challenge to the enforceability of the guarantee.

The court examined whether Modi had been properly served with a demand notice, whether the demand related to a liability owed to the bank, and whether the personal guarantee was legally enforceable. Justice Tinkler ruled in favour of Bank of India on all three issues.

According to the judgment, Modi is liable for the principal outstanding amount of $4.1 million. After adding accumulated interest, the total payable amount has risen to an estimated $11.5 million as of March 2026, with additional interest continuing to accrue.

The public sector lender has been pursuing recovery proceedings against Modi since 2018, following the emergence of allegations involving companies linked to the businessman. Modi, who has largely represented himself in the proceedings, is currently lodged in a UK prison while contesting his extradition to India in a separate Punjab National Bank fraud and money laundering case.

Law firm Fladgate LLP, representing Bank of India, clarified after the verdict that the proceedings were strictly related to a commercial banking recovery claim and did not deal with the wider allegations connected to the Punjab National Bank fraud case.

US President Donald Trump reportedly dismissed a proposal by Vice President JD Vance to involve Indian troops in a potential peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, according to a newly released book detailing internal White House discussions on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The revelation appears in “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump”, authored by journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. The book claims that the discussion took place during an Oval Office meeting held shortly after Trump’s return to the White House, when senior officials were considering options to end the war in Ukraine.

Vance suggested India and Saudi Arabia

According to the book, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, presented a peace proposal that included deploying foreign troops to monitor a possible ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Initial plans reportedly considered personnel from European countries, including France, Britain and the Netherlands.

However, Vance is said to have raised concerns over deploying troops from NATO countries, arguing that such a move could escalate tensions with Russia. He then reportedly suggested that countries outside Europe, such as India and Saudi Arabia, could contribute troops for the mission.

Trump’s reported response

The book claims Trump laughed off the suggestion and responded by saying, “The Indians won’t do that,” adding that India would not be willing to bear the costs associated with such a deployment. The authors further state that Trump remarked on his relationship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi while expressing doubts about India’s participation.

There has been no official response from the Indian government regarding the claims mentioned in the book.

The reported exchange comes amid ongoing international efforts to secure a ceasefire and find a diplomatic solution to the prolonged Russia-Ukraine war. Several proposals involving multinational peacekeeping arrangements have been discussed in recent years, though no agreement has yet been reached.

In a significant challenge to President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, the US Senate has approved legislation directing the administration to halt military action against Iran, reflecting growing concern in Congress over the conflict.

The Senate passed the war powers resolution by a narrow 50-48 vote on Tuesday. The measure, which had already cleared the House of Representatives earlier this month, seeks to require congressional approval for any further military hostilities against Iran, except in cases involving self-defence or imminent threats.

The vote marked a rare instance of bipartisan opposition to Trump, with four Republican senators joining Democrats in backing the resolution. Democratic Senator John Fetterman voted against the measure, while two Republican senators were absent during the voting process.

Growing unease over Iran conflict

The resolution highlights increasing unease among lawmakers over the conflict with Iran, which began in February. Several members of Congress have argued that prolonged military engagement should not continue without explicit authorisation from lawmakers, citing Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war.

Although the Senate’s action represents a political setback for Trump, its practical impact remains uncertain. The White House has maintained that such resolutions are unconstitutional and has argued that the president retains broad authority over military operations. Legal experts also note that enforcing the measure could ultimately require judicial intervention.

The latest vote comes amid wider debate in Washington over the extent of presidential war powers and congressional oversight during overseas military engagements.