SBI moves application in SC seeking clarifications on judgment on fraud classification of borrowers

New Delhi [India], April 16 : The State Bank of India has moved an application in the Supreme Court seeking clarifications on the judgement on fraud classification of borrowers and urged the court to clarify that banks can decide the time frame of adjudication depending upon the urgency of the matter.

State Bank of India in its application, has sought clarification of the top court's judgment dated March 27 and that the banks can decide the time frame of adjudication depending upon the urgency of the matter.

On March 27, the Supreme Court rejected the State Bank of India's appeal, upholding the Telangana High Court's order and ruled that it is reasonably practicable for the lender banks to provide an opportunity for a hearing to the borrowers before classifying their accounts as fraud.

The bank, in its fresh application sought to clarify that providing relevant extracts from the forensic auditor report, would meet the ends of justice and be prospective in operation.

The application 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. The disclosure of the entire material against the borrower, at this stage, would give an opportunity for 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 or representatives do participate. Hence supplying relevant extract of the forensic audit report would meet the ends of justice, the applicant said.

The applicant said that in view of the intricacies of the issues adjudicated in the captioned appeal, it may be clarified that the application of the judgment is made prospective in operation so that its impact does not fall on past decisions.

The application said that there is an apprehension that the defaulter borrowers may raise the question of a personal hearing and may try to delay the adjudication in absence of a specific time limit stipulated and they may now insist on a complete copy of the forensic auditor report, instead of relevant extracts.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor