9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) which is a public listed company. 3. It is alleged that at the material time, the petitioner was a part of the management of REL and RFL and in conspiracy with the promoters of REL - Mr Malvinder Mohan Singh and Mr Shivender Mohan Singh (hereafter referred to as 'the Promoters') - had siphoned off funds from RFL into various shell companies controlled by the promoters for their benefit. 4. It is alleged in the chargesheet that the petitioner was working for the Religare Group since 2008 in various capacities. He was a director of RFL from 06.04.2010 to 14.11.2017. During this period, he was a Whole Time Director till 13.11.2011 and thereafter, held office as a Non-Executive Director. The petitioner was also the Group Chief Financial Officer (Group CFO) and Director of Religare Enterprises Ltd. He was appointed on 06.04.2010. He resigned as an Executive Director of REL on 24.01.2013, but continued to function as the Group CFO till his resignation on 14.11.2017. 5. It is alleged that during his employment with the Religare Group, he was part of various committees including the Risk Management Committee of RFL, which had approved loans to various entities controlled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... srepresented that the transactions were not related party transactions, even though he was aware that the loans had been diverted to entities controlled by the Promoters including RHC Holdings Pvt. Ltd (hereafter RHL) - a company wholly held by the Promoters - through shell entities to whom loans were extended by RFL. 11. Mr Mathur had also referred to the email dated 21.09.2016 and contended that the said email indicated that the outstanding amount on the Corporate Loan Book (CLB) was discussed and the email indicates that the petitioner was a party to the discussion of not reporting NPAs by evergreening of the said loans. 12. Lastly, Mr Mathur submitted that the petitioner's contention that he had received no benefits from the loans extended by RFL was incorrect as the chargesheet indicated that he was also granted a loan of approximately Rs.1.4 crores by one of the entities owned and controlled by the Promoters. 13. Mr Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not in day to day control and management of RFL. He submitted that the petitioner was a whole time director of RFL but had demitted the office way back in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be in the possession of RFL, were released on 11.01.2018. He earnestly contended that there was nothing culpable in the petitioner approving the said loans on the premise that the loans would be secured by the immovable property. He submitted that the documents pertaining to the said immovable property (Asola Land) continued to be with RFL and were returned much after the petitioner had resigned as a director of RFL and as an employee of REL. He stated that in the event the prosecution led any evidence to establish any culpability on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner would also take steps to lead evidence in his defence and there is enough evidence available to establish that the petitioner was not culpably involved. 15. He further contended that there is no allegation that the petitioner had received any benefit of the loans approved by the credit committee/loan approval committee of which the petitioner was a member. He further stated that the loan documents also indicated that the borrowing entities enjoyed the confidence of the Promoters and that was also a valid consideration for granting loans to those entities as the Promoters also had a significant economic intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of and the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail. 20. The reading of the chargesheet indicates that the prosecution had identified nineteen questionable loan transactions where the borrowers had defaulted in repayment of the dues advanced to them. The chargesheet indicates that in all of those nineteen instances, the loan had been approved by the Risk Management Committee and in certain cases was also approved by the RPT (Related Party Transaction) sub-committee. The date on which the approvals were been granted are indicated in the chargesheet. All of these questionable transactions pertain to the period after the year, 2016. The learned APP could not point out any instance, referred to in the chargesheet, of any loan transaction pertaining to a period prior to the year, 2016. However, she submitted that there may be instances where the loans extended after the year 2016 may have been partly used to service loans provided earlier. 21. However, it cannot be disputed that most of the questionable loan transactions had been entered into after 2016. Undisputedly, the petitioner was employed with the Religare Group of Companies in various capacities since 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the loans was that the Promoters were comfortable with the borrowing entities and had also issued a letter agreeing to purchase the entire Corporate Loan Book with no cost or loss to RFL. At this stage, the Court is refraining from examining the question whether any such defence is merited. However, it would not be apposite to observe that the petitioner does contend that he did not act in any culpable manner. Further the loan proposals also disclosed that the Promoters were comfortable with the same. 25. The petitioner had also contended that proposals for the six loans approved by the committee of which the petitioner was a party had been initiated by other employees. 26. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution is relying on the proposal documents to indicate that the entities to whom funds were lent by RFL were not creditworthy. Indisputably, these documents were also available to all members of the Risk Management Committee and the RPT Committee who had approved the said loans. Whilst the petitioner and some other officials of the company have been accused along with the Promoters, other members of the concerned committees that had approved the loans have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any of the documents which may be used against him. 32. The petitioner is a qualified Chartered Accountant and there is no allegation that he had any other stake in REL or RFL except as an employee or an official of the said companies. It prima facie does appear that the petitioner was employed by virtue of his professional qualifications. There is also little material to establish that the remuneration paid to the petitioner was not commensurate with his position in REL. The above is also a vital aspect to be borne in mind while examining whether the petitioner should be granted bail. 33. This Court is not persuaded to accept that the petitioner has any propensity to tamper with the relevant evidence. As noticed above, the petitioner had left the employment of the REL almost three years ago. He had also resigned as a director of RFL. 34. The chargesheet against the petitioner has been filed. The petitioner has been in custody since 10.10.2019 - for over eight months. 35. This Court is informed that the petitioner was released on interim bail for a period of ten days and there is no allegation that the petitioner had misused his liberty. 36. This Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
