9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Bank of India (for short "the Bank"). Accused no.1 was M/s Electrotherm (India) Limited (for short, "the Company"). Accused no.2-Mukesh Bhanwarlal Bhandari was the Chairman of the Company. Accused no.3- Shailesh Bhanwarlal Bhandari was the Managing Director of the Company. Accused no.4-Avinash Prakashchandra Bhandari was the Joint Managing Director of the Company. Accused no.5 was one Hector Keki Vesuna, who was, at the relevant time, the Chief General Manager (Credit) of the Bank. Accused no. 6 was Ramnath Pradeep, who was an Executive Director of the Bank at the relevant time. 2. During the years 2010-2011, the Bank sanctioned following three facilities to the Company: - a. Short-term loan of Rs. 50 crores; b. Letter of credit having a limit of Rs. 100 crores; and c. Export Packing Credit (EPC) facilities of Rs.330 crores. 3. The Bank disbursed a sum of Rs. 247.50 crores against EPC on various dates. The Company claimed that it was awarded a contract by M/s Kamal Alloys Ltd., Tanzania, for the execution/setting up of a steel plant in Tanzania on a turnkey basis. Therefore, the EPC facility was granted for procurement of raw materials and components for the said projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding the EPC facility of Rs.330 crores was added by a witness-V.K. Nagpal, on instruction of accused no.5, though there was no recommendation made by the zonal office to the proposal. She submitted that this was done on 10th August 2010, and on the same day, accused no.5 and 6 prepared a Memorandum to be submitted to the management committee. The said two accused and respondent signed the Memorandum on the same date. She submitted that undue hurry was shown for sanctioning an EPC facility of Rs.330 crores to the Company. She submitted that for the sake of alleged efficiency, the due process required to be followed for sanctioning credit facilities could not have been sacrificed. She submitted that no application was made by the Company for a grant of EPC facility. It is submitted that though there may not be any allegation of receipt of pecuniary benefits against the respondent, he abused his official position as a public servant and indulged himself in mischief or criminal misconduct, as provided in Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. She submitted that at the stage of framing of the charge, the High Court could not have gone into the veracity of the allegations made by the prosec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ets to show that the respondent has played any role in sanction of SBLC. The statement of Shri Ayodhya Prasad Dwivedi, who is retired General Manager of the Bank (PW-3), refers to recommendations of the zonal office for sanctioning the first two facilities of Rs. 50 crores and Rs.100 crores respectively. He stated that he could not find any recommendation from the zonal office for sanctioning the EPC facility. He has referred to the Memorandum submitted to the Management Committee, which refers to the EPC facility of Rs.330 crores. He stated that there was a summary note bearing the signatures of accused nos.5 to 7. He stated that the Memorandum was put up before the Loan Advisory Committee on 11th August 2010. The Loan Advisory Committee recommended the proposal. He duly signed the recommendation along with accused no.6 and Dr. Ram Saduba Sangapure, Manager, Risk Management. The Loan Advisory Committee recommended the proposal on the terms and conditions proposed in the Executive Brief. He stated that the Management Committee meeting held on 13th August 2010 was attended by respondents nos. 5 to 7, Executive Director Shri Arun Kaul, Shri M.S. Zohar, Shri Ved Prakash, Shri B.S. Ram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that NBG clearance for admitting the proposal was issued. 12. The statement of Shri Vinod Kumar Nagpal (PW-10) refers to NBG approval given on 10th August 2010. However, witness Shri Salim Gangadharan (PW-18) stated that the central office entertained the proposal without the recommendation of the zonal office. He stated that though he was a nominee Director of RBI, he did not attend the Management Committee meeting dated 13th August 2010, as in view of the instructions of RBI prevailing at that time, he was not supposed to attend the meeting. This witness and another witness, Mrs.V R Iyer, had visited Tanzania to conduct a survey and explore the possibility of opening a Branch. He stated that he met Shri Gagan Gupta, the Director of M/s Kamal Alloys Ltd. in Tanzania. He doubted whether M/s Kamal Alloys Ltd could generate funds to set up a plant on the company's marshy land. But the witness agreed that he did not submit a report to that effect. Witness Mrs. V.R. Iyer, who was the Executive Director of the Bank, in her statement stated that the Bank could have been more prudent in doing the due diligence of the foreign entity. 13. We find that the Loan Advisory Committee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
