SBI’s “LAXITY” Over Mallya’s Loans is a Lie

The reality is that SBI wanted to approach the Supreme Court much earlier than they did

SBI’s “LAXITY” Over Mallya’s Loans is a Lie
SBI’s “LAXITY” Over Mallya’s Loans is a Lie

Reports against SBI alleged its “laxity” came catching another victim for the delay in recovering the loan amount

Yes, they all suddenly discovered a new accused: the State Bank of India.

This happened even as Rahul Evil, his lying Congress MP and sections of media were blaming Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, our very PM himself, and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of being guilty of hatching a conspiratorial “deal” with Vijay Mallya, the Beer Baron of the “Good Times” over the recovery of a massive loan of some Rs.9,000 crore accorded to him by a consortium of Banks headed by SBI.

The SBI went to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, (DRT), Bengaluru, in 2013 to recover its loans to Kingfisher/Vijay Mallya and that there have been 81 hearings till the date of the interview.

Reports against SBI alleged its “laxity” came catching another victim for the delay in recovering the loan amount.  The specific charge was that SBI had been, in February 2016, legally advised by a senior advocate to move the Supreme Court to stop Mallya from fleeing the country, but the lenders, after showing eagerness and alacrity in an emergency meeting on February 28, 2016, approached only four days after the Kingfisher bird had fled from his cage. Sceptics “saw” a very top hand in SBI’s decision to ignore the top legal advice. These sceptics say that there was “some instruction from the top echelon in the government” which made this happen and, therefore, there was a fit case for investigation.

The reality is that SBI wanted to approach the Supreme Court much earlier than they did.

The law of the land, you see, had forced the SBI to go to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. And there the Bank’s experience was intolerant, torturous.

Consider the following facts revealed by the SBI Chairman, Ms Arundhati Bhattacharya, in an interview with a senior journalist, Shekhar Gupta, in an interview to rediff.com in March 2016:-

(i)   The SBI went to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, (DRT), Bengaluru, in 2013 to recover its loans to Kingfisher/Vijay Mallya and that there have been 81 hearings till the date of the interview

(ii)  Vijay Mallya has filed several cases against the SBI in the DRT and the SBI has filed counterclaims. There are 22 cases SBI is fighting here, and overall there have been 508 hearings. The number of adjournments is more than 180.

(iii) The SBI consulted the Attorney General of India about going to the High Court / Supreme Court but were told that the law demanded that the DRT should first be approached.

http://www.rediff.com/business/interview/mallya-saga-interview-why-sbi-has-so-far-failed-to-recover-money-from-vijay-mallya/20160314.htm

Meanwhile, NaMo must look very seriously into the functioning and staffing of our Debt Recovery Tribunals.

It was finally an international financial event that enabled SBI to go to the Supreme Court. Diageo Plc, the world’s largest liquor company, had signed an agreement in 2016 to pay, in instalments, an amount of  £53 million to pay Vijay Mallya as part of a settlement for Mallya walking away from United Spirits Ltd NSE -1.98 %, which it had acquired. The first instalment was to be of $75 million.

It wished to claim the first right on the payment by Diageo to Mallya and seek to impound of his passport. Hence, SBI had in the first week of March 2016 moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Bangalore. However, the DRT reserved its order and set the next hearing for 28 March 2016 (almost four weeks after the Kingfisher bird had fled from its cage.). The question of SBI’s “laxity” just did not arise. QED.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court heard the petition of SBI and 12 other Banks almost a month prior to the date of March 28, 2016, fixed by the Bangalore Debt Recovery Tribunal.

On March 1, 2016, the 13 Banks led by SBI, urgently moved the court to restrain Mr. Mallya from leaving the country. They wanted the court to seize his passport. Prompted by the urgency of the banks’ pleas, Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur on Tuesday (March 1) posted the case for the next day.

On March 2, in the Court, Mr. Rohotgi told the CJI that, as per the CBI information, the liquor baron is said to have left the country on March 2, (Wednesday), the day they approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Had SBI or the CJI postponed the critical hearing by a day?

Rahul Evil should decide whom to now attack and abuse?

Meanwhile, NaMo must look very seriously into the functioning and staffing of our Debt Recovery Tribunals.

Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here