Clarity sought on the verdict related to fraudulent loan accounts: SBI moves Supreme Court

 The State Bank of India (SBI), the largest lender in the country, sought clarification from the Supreme Court of India regarding the 27th March judgment on the fraud classification of borrowers. The then-delivered judgment (State Bank of India & Ors vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors) stated that before classifying a loan account as fraudulent, the banks are bound to give an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petition filed by the SBI illustrated that the bank is not seeking a review of the judgment since “there is an apprehension of the judgment being misconducted and misapplied.” The bank further stated that “there is an apprehension that the defaulter borrowers may rise the question of personal hearing and may try to delay the adjudication in absence of specific time limit stipulated.” 

The bank further wants clarification from the Supreme Court on whether the relevant extracts should be provided from the forensic audit report or the whole of the report should be provided to meet justice. The SBI submitted that “handing over the complete forensic auditor report would hamper the investigation by law enforcement agencies as it would result in forewarning the perpetrators by way of disclosure of confidential/ critical information.” It also said that if the entire material is disclosed against the borrower then the borrower will give an opportunity to delay the investigation, abscond or destroy the evidence.

The filed plea said, “The disclosure of the entire material against the borrower, at this stage, would give an opportunity to the borrower to delay the investigation, destroy the evidence and abscond the country. This is more so since the forensic report which is the basis of the decision making is prepared based upon the documents supplied by the borrower themselves and in the process of forensic audit the borrowers/representatives do participate. Hence supplying relevant extract of the forensic auditor report would meet the ends of justice.” It further added “those defaulters, whose default has substantially contributed to the weakening of the financial position of the banks, thereby affecting the economy of the nation.”

Also Read: Supreme Court Updates