Avantha Holdings Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petition challenging a bank's declaration of a corporate borrower's account as fraud based on a forensic auditor's report, alleging breach of natural justice because the report relied only on materials supplied by the new management. Judgment text is severely corrupted and truncated mid-submissions.
What the court decided
$~ 4
* IN THEGCOURFDLAW
t Dlivro: en gm d Ju . 9 2 8 0
+ W.P(C) 274/03
GSME&R. LDINTH OV A onr eti. P s
roug: h T Mr. Krisha Venugopal, Sr. Adv. n
with Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Ms.
Suni ta Gupta and Mr. Sakshit
wj, Avs. a r d Bh
ver s
FDA&RS. NIO U dt ne spo . R s
roug: h T Mr. p e Sand Kumar hptr, M a
GS with Mr. Tribhuvam,Adv. for C
R - 1/UOI.
Mr. vgnj eSa , S r. Adv withMs.
a zi PrvN en ad Mr.Ak a s h Glot,
Advs. f or R - 3/SBI.
Mr. Mlk Bha a , Ms. N t ha N e gpl a
bhk,AvfoRNityP rd M s.a n
4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICVKA
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MHJN,
1. The wr it peion , a s il ntyfed , soug ht e rli f o in o a r t decl
e ft h cha t r epor t da ed .0 7 2 [hereafter ”Pipara ad pre
by respondent no.4/Pipara & Co. [ ned and omis c
I ()v.3/k SBisof hg ntpread u
and caot be r n lid upon being in compl e t breach of t e he ncles of r ip
rl jsice. atu n e Thnr stio pal h g ou s n etidn a s quashigof the
Reot. par Pi
2. During the pdcy of pr en e snt peon, r ti dt no.3/SBI had n spo e
. P(C) W74/03 2 Page 1 of 32
brought oncod re t hdeclrion a s frud a ate d .0 9 2 under srv R e
Bank o f I ndiasc (Fru to lfda n g ire p cb y ma loksad n
lct FIs) Ds e rectons 20 i 16 [hereafter ”Master s on Frauds
spct ofthe r e ount a c o f CGPower andustil rInLS o d. [h ter
”CG Power‘ ] . P onrs sought to eti ins ert the paye s r king quashing and e
set ting aside of the said on fart i ec ldhuCGPw o h te xn
it ers the nc o cio u tans r rtak during the period when p e d n onrs eti
icfCGP. tsd an wer o pm
3. e Thca st eouin the r e s nt ip os t hain th e yar 2017, K
Consortium [hereafter ”KKR‘ ] let na untf R o m.9 0s ec ro t onr ei p
no.1 and the same was scurd by a pl e dg of e % 2 hare of CG Power s
34%fslg tion.ad 1 her pw
4. 3219, K 0. On8 inv ed th k o plgbu10.8% fa rCG s
Power , by a cqu i ngs ther s o fCGPw e r . Thblnc108 a % s hare
319 20. vkdi nwer f CGP o
5. sy, ul e o ta n Sim3219 itself, .0 8 an ”Operations Com
rmed c fonsi tgMr. yn Seshdi ar N (l so pa tedi na di tonlA
d Noa n - t iv I e cuExpDi ndr ec t o aCG Power) , Mr .N e Klkant
and Mr. Sudhir Mathur slctd by e R to focus on K tinl per ao
nt and e provi m cing. On the same very day, p r es tu onr no.2 eti
resi ed asNo n g - fCGPw ro v D tiec uEx .
6. qntly, on bs e S u 19, Operations Co 24.0 i te of CG Power m
ointed Vaish Aa p ociate, Advocates to s ga a e snv ti gd le gulats ire
with egad to certain r cio of CG Power tans r . Vaish Aociate in turn s
ointed Da p to loi et ondut an a c tig nc ou - focused gao. ves tin
y, D idetalos wcI n hgburf K Dsubmd it e lo
. P(C) W74/03 2 Page 2 of 32
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the classification of the borrower company's account as fraud by the bank, based on a forensic audit report, can be quashed.
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court