ORDER

(19.04.2023) 1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 20.06.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 11.04.2021and first appeal dated 17.05.2021:-

(i) Provide the cell number of Ms. Ala Venkateswaramma one of the Directors mentioned in Finacle? Since the cell number mentioned there in proves show was a dummy director only? It is reported the cell number *******961 is in the name of Bollaiah (her spouse who had committed suicide) and not in her name?

(ii) Provide the department in which Mr. Bollaiah and Mr. Chilaka Chandra Mouli worked?

(iii) Provide the occupation of Mr. Chilaka Chandra Mouli another director and his address?

(iv) Provide the copy of the communications exchanged between Bank of India and Mr. Chilaka Chandra Mouli about non establishment of the unit and diversion of term loan disbursements as the factual position violated the terms and conditions of Guarantee Agreement and render the equitable mortgage and personal guarantee are non – enforceable?

(v) Provide the copy of communications exchanged between Bank of India and Mr.

Ala Bollaiah (late) and his legal heirs about non establishment of the unit and diversion of disbursements for the purpose other than the purpose for which loan disbursements were made and the factual position violated the terms and conditions Guarantee agreement and equitable mortgage and render the suitable mortgage and personal guarantee are non – enforceable?

(vi) Provide the date of filing of complaint with CBI against the directors of the company MrBalagani Bose Babu and Mr.Vaka Venkateshwara Rao for committing the fraud and the amount involved is Rs. 300 lakhs and one of the mortgage properties is own by law enforcement authority, who can influence the investigation if the complaint is filed with Police? More over the Bank’s action violated the Guarantee agreement and rendered the agreement as VOID? AND NOT ENFORCIABLE LEGALLY? Hence the entire exposure is clean and non-

recoverable from collateral securities?

(vii) It is reported that the borrowers originally approached Kedareswara pet branch and the branch head reported directed them to RBC and RBC referred them to SMECC and AMO directed them to park at Benz Circle branch for obvious reasons instead of allowing the SMECC to park the account at Kedareswara Pet Branch? This proves no role of Mr. P Nageswara Rao in identification of the borrowing company and role of AMO in parking the account at Benz Circle to have his control in disbursements?

(viii) Provide the correspondence exchanged between Zonal Office and Benz Circle Branch for submission of the proposal for Review in May 2020? As the original sanction was dated 22-05-2019?

(ix) Provide the copy of the unit inspection conducted by an officer who is not associated with the account since the amount involved is more than Rs. 50 lakhs and unit inspection conducted after disbursement in June 2019.

(x) Provide the name of the authority from functional department Zonal Office, of the then AP Zone, that had monitored the disbursements from May 2019 to 10th January 2020 the formation of new Vijayawada Zone?

(xi) Provide the name of the authority of Vijayawada Zonal Office that had monitored the account from 20th January 2020 to till date?

(xii) Provide the name of the authority from SMECC Visakhapatnam Who had monitored the disbursements with Benz circle Branch as the Branch Officials of June 2019 had informed that Mr. T V Rao had pressurized them for disbursements?

(xiii) Provide the legal steps taken by the Bank against the suppliers to whom the RTGS remittances were made for recovery of the amounts remitted to them as they have not supplied the material as per the quotations and facilitated diversion of funds and it attracts IPC 420 and other sections and they are liable to