SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2880

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, PRASHANT KUMAR, JJ.
M/S Simbhaoli Sugars Limited - Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India And 7 Others - Respondent
Writ C No.26869 of 2023
Decided on : 12-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rohan Gupta
For the Respondent: Satish Chaturvedi, Anadi Krishna Narayana, Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, Manish Trivedi, Nishant Mehrotra, R.V. Pandey, Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Yashwant Singh

Failure to adhere to RBI guidelines in loan disbursement constitutes fraud, leading to contempt for willful defaults and necessitating CBI investigation.

Headnote:(A) Reserve Bank of India Circular dated 01.07.2009 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Fraud in loan disbursement - Petitioner syphoned off Rs.1300 crores from multiple banks without due diligence, violating mandatory RBI guidelines, resulting in contempt proceedings against directors due to willful default and public interest concerns - Banks failed to recover loans after declaring petitioner NPA despite various defaults - Court directed CBI to investigate the fraudulent activity of both banks and the petitioner. (Paras 1-69)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a sugar mill, took loans from several banks, declared NPA while continuing to receive funds without due diligence or adequate security. Farmers' cane dues are outstanding at Rs.279 crores.

Issues: The court addressed the connivance between the banks and the petitioner in defrauding public money and the contemptuous behavior of the petitioner by not honoring commitments.

Findings of Court:
The conduct of the petitioner and collusion with banks resulted in significant public harm; contempt proceedings warranted against directors for misleading the court and breaching assurances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found a clear case of fraud due to failure in following RBI guidelines resulting in substantial public money being siphoned off, thus requiring accountability from bank officials.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for CBI investigation into fraud and possible money laundering.

Table of Content
1. collusion and loans disbursed without due diligence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. petitioner seeks to quash rejection of settlement offer. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court observations on lack of seriousness from petitioner. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. legal consequences of ignoring supreme court precedent. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. banks' failures in following rbi guidelines. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. failures of banks in recovering debts. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
7. fraudulent actions by borrower and complicity of banks. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
8. mandatory reporting guidelines for banks. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
9. consequences for failing to report fraud. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
10. court orders to sanction thorough investigations. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
11. court's distress over public funds being siphoned off. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
12. conclusions drawn in the public interest. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
13. closure of petition with directives. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep Arora, learned counsel for the State Bank of India, Shri Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned counsel for Punjab National Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the Bank of India, Shri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the UCO Bank, Sri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the ICICI Bank, Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for Bank of Baroda and Shri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for one of the Directors and Shri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for Intervening Applicants (Cane Co-operative Societies).

2. This is a shocking case of clear connivance of unscrupulous businessman and banks, wherein the bank officials have knowingly allowed the petitioner to syphon away almost Rs.1300/- crores of the public money. Here the banks had advanced hundreds crores of rupees to the petitioner company knowing the fact that they have already defaulted with the loans taken by other banks previously and been declared N.P.A., still the banks went ahead and approved loans running into several hundred crores and the entire loan was disbursed without following the mandatory steps/procedures, which banks are supposed to take before disbursing the loan.

3. After the default of the petitioner in paying back the loan of the first bank, the bank instead of proceeding to recover this amount, gave a long rope to the petitioner to take loan from the second bank. This second bank also very easily without following the mandatory steps grants a loan without any adequate security, which was never paid back by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moves on to the third bank for another loan and this bank also grants a loan without any due diligence, and without following the norms and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India for loans to the company, and without even adequate security or additional security and without doing any regulatory compliances this bank again disburses a huge loan and further, do not carry out the post disbursement supervision and lets the petitioner to syphon away the entire amount.

4. The petitioner adopted the same modus operandi again and again with 7 banks and surprisingly, rather shockingly, all the seven banks had extended loan facilities to the petitioner without any due diligence, credit approval, risk report appraisal and without following the RBI guidelines to advance loans to the companies and also without adequate security and in few of the cases a personal guarantee was given by the promoters to many banks.

5. Shockingly, the banks, even after declaring the petitioner’s account as NPA has not taken any effective steps to recover the amount. In fact it will not be wrong to say that no sincere effort had been taken by the banks and all the efforts shown to have been taken was nothin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top