AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 16.10.2023 which was passed in O.A. No.142/2020 titled as Bank of Baroda V. Kishore Kumar Harwani & others. It is reflecting that the appellant filed the present O.A. bearing No.142/2020 against the defendants including respondent no.1 who was defendant no.5 before DRT. The remaining defendants appear to be proceeded ex parte. DRT vide order dated 16.10.2023 kept in abeyance the final decision in the O.A. bearing No.142/2020. The observation made by the DRT, Jaipur in the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 is reproduced as under:-
In my considered opinion before sanction of such a huge amount of Rs.95.00 Lacs, all the said license and documents required to be collected, but the loan/credit facility was sanctioned against the set norms of RBI, properties of guarantors were overvalued and officers of the bank failed to take notice of stock as "Fruits" which was perishable items. Balance sheet as projected was not prepared by a Chartered Accountant and so it is not clear that why projected Balance was considered as genuine. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, officials of the applicant bank are in connivance with the borrowers i.e. Defendant no.1 & 2 caused wrongful loss to the bank, loan was sanctioned without ensuring the credit worthiness of borrowers, property of Defendant No.5 was overvalued with a single object to enhance the limit of loan amount. Therefore, final decision of this OA is kept pending. Copy of this order be forwarded to Zonal Head of the bank and to Chief Manager Vigilance to conduct the inquiry against the officers who sanctioned credit facility in favour of Defendant no.1 & 2, who are now absconding as stated by Ld. counsel for the applicant bank. If the officers of the bank are found guilty necessary actions like departmental as well as criminal can be recommended against the responsible officer.
Inquiry be completed between three months time and to file the same on record before this Tribunal.
Sh. Sougat Sinha, counsel for the appellant stated that he is confining his relief to the extent of the finding of DRT regarding keeping the final decision in the O.A. No.142/2020 in abeyance till necessary action is taken against the erring officers/officials of the appellant. DRT also observed that the officials of the appellant were in connivance with the borrowers/defendants 1 and 2 for causing wrongful loss to the bank. It was also observed that the property of the defendant no.5 was overvalued to enhance the limit of loan amount.
This Tribunal is in agreement with the argument of the counsel for the appellant that DRT, Jaipur should have decided the O.A. No.142/2020 finally and should not have kept the final decision in the O.A. in abeyance. Although the senior officers of the appellant were directed to conduct inquiry against the erring officials, the final decision in the O.A. and the inquiry against the erring officers of the appellant/applicant of the O.A. are two independent proceedings and for the sake of vigilance inquiry, the final decision in the O.A. cannot be kept in abeyance. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 is set aside to the extent of keeping the final decision in the O.A. in abeyance. DRT is directed to decide the O.A. on merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The present appeal stands disposed of.