Tag: High Court

SC refuses to entertain bail plea of Rakesh Wadhawan, asks him to approach HC, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


New Delhi, The Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain the bail plea filed on health grounds by jailed businessman Rakesh Wadhawan, accused of money laundering in the multi-crore rupees Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative (PMC) Bank fraud case, saying that he has been in hospital more than the jail. A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli permitted senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Wadhawan, to withdraw the bail plea to approach the high court.

Rohatgi referred to the medical condition of the accused and said that he has been in jail for quite some time.

“I see, he has been in hospital more than in jail. Go to the high court,” the bench said prompting Rohatgi to say that it was the high court which refused the bail.

“File after some time. Not now. Alright permitted to withdraw to approach the high court,” the bench said.

The Bombay High Court on October 14 had refused to grant bail to Wadhawan.

Wadhawan, founder of Housing Development Infrastructure Limited (HDIL), was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in 2019 in the case.

The high court had said that Wadhawan’s submission that he was immediately required to be released on temporary bail on medical grounds, was “not justified”.

It had said that denial of medical bail was in no way a breach of Wadhawan’s fundamental right to life since he had been provided adequate medical treatment by the state prison authorities whenever required.

Wadhawan, who had undergone a surgery for pacemaker implantation, had sought that he be released on bail so that he can seek discharge from the civic-run KEM Hospital in the city, where he is recuperating while in judicial custody, and shift to a private hospital while out on bail.

He had said in his plea that he suffered from severe comorbidities, that his immune system had been compromised after having contracted COVID-19 recently, and that he was susceptible to contracting infections and ailments while at the civic hospital due to the heavy footfall the hospital received.

He had also said that the KEM Hospital did not have an ICU facility specifically meant for those suffering from cardiac issues.

The fraud at PMC Bank came to light in September 2019 after the Reserve Bank of India discovered that the bank had allegedly created fictitious accounts to hide over Rs 4,355 crore of loans extended to almost-bankrupt Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited (HDIL).

According to RBI, the PMC bank masked 44 problematic loan accounts, including those of HDIL, by tampering with its core banking system, and the accounts were accessible only to limited staff members.

Mumbai Police’s Economic Offences Wing and the ED had registered offences against senior bank officials and HDIL promoters.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , ,

HC deplores “administrative arrogance” of SBI officials, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Chennai, The Madras High Court has deplored the “administrative arrogance” on the part of the officials of the leading premier public sector bank State Bank of India towards its customers. What prompted Justice S M Subramaniam, who slammed the bank officials, was a statement of the officials that the customers (in this case the stamp vendors) are at liberty to approach any other bank for their transactions.

“The above statement in the counter filed by the State Bank of India is to be construed as an irresponsible one. The SBI is a public sector bank and the authorities are the public servants. The petitioners are depositing cash in the government accounts on behalf of the government through Treasury Challans issued to them.”

“The statement portrays the ‘administrative arrogance’ on the part of the authorities in exercise of their powers and the tenor of the statement is a threat to the public administration, as the stamp vendors have no option but to deposit money only in government accounts at SBI branches,” the judge said and directed its Assistant General Manager to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings by conducting an enquiry and find out on what circumstances such statements were allowed to be made in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court.

The judge also directed the bank’s general manager to sensitize his subordinates in this regard to develop good conduct with the customers and the citizens. These employees/officials must be reminded that from and out of the transactions through the customers and citizens, their salaries are paid. Thus, they are expected to maintain good conduct always and honour the rights of the customers, the judge added.

The judge made the observations while allowing a batch of writ petitions from the stamp vendors, who prayed that the SBI authorities waive off fully the cash handling charges collected from them in pursuant to an official communication from the State Treasury authorities issued in March 3, 2016 and consequently forbear the relevant SBI branches in the City from collecting any cash handling charges forthwith from the petitioners for purchase of stamp papers.

The judge declared the collection of cash handling charges from the stamp vendors/petitioners by the SBI as illegal and without any authority and directed it not to do so, while the stamp vendors deposit cash in government accounts through treasury challans.

The highest authority of the SBI was also directed by the judge to communicate this order, along with necessary circular/instructions, to all SBI branches and upload the same in its official website, to enable the citizens to know their rights. PTI COR SA APR APR



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , , ,

No HC relief for Tatas on use of their trademark as crypto coin, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Personal Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Bitcoin may be a household name today, but there are various types of cryptocurrencies that exist. Ever heard of a cryptocurrency bearing the trademarks ‘Tata coin’ or ‘$Tata’?

Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group, was unsuccessful in its bid to seek a permanent injunction from the Delhi high court restraining Hakunamatata Tata Founders and others from using the trademark ‘Tata’ as part of the name under which the cryptocurrency was made available to the public or as part of their corporate or domain name.

The domain names tatabonus.com and hakunamatata.finance that enabled the purchase and sale of the ‘Tata’ cryptocurrency were set up in June and May of 2021 respectively. The reason Tata Sons could not succeed is because it could not prove to the satisfaction of the court that the foreign parties (the defendants) intended to target India as a customer base.

No HC relief for Tatas on use of their trademark as crypto coinThe defendants in this lawsuit, filed by Tata Sons with the Delhi high court, were companies based in the US and the UK with no India presence. They were located outside the sovereign borders of India and statutorily outside the reach of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In this backdrop, the “intention to target India as a customer base was of paramount importance” for Tata Sons to make its case.

“The mere fact that the defendants’ cryptocurrency can be purchased by customers located in India and that, as a result, the plaintiff’s brand value may be diluted, even seen cumulatively, cannot in my view justify this court interfering with the defendants’ activities, or with its brand or mark,” held Justice C Hari Shankar.

The festive season can throw all your general perceptions about media ROI out of the window…

Apparently, the defendants’ cryptocurrency could be purchased — using the QR Code and the methodology indicated on the defendants’ website — by a customer located anywhere in the world. This factor therefore, too, cannot indicate any conscious targeting of the Indian customer base by the defendants. Nor do the websites or social media accounts prove any intent to target customers covered by the high court’s jurisdiction. “If at all they target customers, they target customers across the world,” the judge observed.

Tata Sons didn’t respond to an emailed query on the issue. Sources told TOI that Tata Sons is considering to pursue this case in the UK court.

Watch BE+ with Ambi Parameswaran: In conversation with industry leaders like Jasneet Bachal, Harish Narayanan, Deepali Naair, Siddhesh Joglekar and more



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , , ,

Mumbai HC refuses bail to Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor’s wife, daughters in DHFL corruption case

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant bail to Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor’s wife and two daughters in a corruption and cheating case involving private sector lender Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL).

A single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre rejected the bail applications filed by Kapoor’s wife Bindu and daughters Roshini and Radha.

The three had approached the HC last week, challenging a special CBI court order of September 18 which refused them bail while noting that they had, prima facie, caused a loss of Rs 4,000 crore to the Yes Bank through illegal acts.

The lower court had remanded them in 14-day judicial custody and said they did not deserve any sympathy for being women.

The three are currently lodged at the Byculla women’s prison in Mumbai.

In their bail pleas filed in the HC, they had said the special CBI court gravely erred in observing that the accusations against them prima facie show complicity in having co-fraudulently and dishonestly received loans as quid pro quo for favour shown by the Yes Bank to DHFL.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had opposed their pleas and said there was nothing wrong with the special court’s order and that it was merely securing the presence of the accused for the purpose of trial.

The CBI’s case is that Rana Kapoor, who is currently in jail in connection with a related case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with DHFL’s Kapil Wadhawan.

The CBI stated that between April and June 2018, Yes Bank invested ₹3,700 crore in short-term debentures of DHFL. In return, DHFL allegedly paid a kickback of ₹900 crore to Kapoor in the form of loans to one DoIT Urban Ventures, a firm controlled by Kapoor’s wife and daughters.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , ,

London court orders Binance to trace cryptocurrency hackers, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Personal Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


LONDON -London’s High Court has ordered Binance, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, to identify hackers and freeze their accounts after one user said it was the victim of a $2.6 million hack.

In a judgment made public this week, a High Court judge granted requests by artificial intelligence (AI) company Fetch.ai for Binance to take steps to identify the hackers and track and seize the assets.

While involving a relatively small sum, the case is one of the first public ones involving Binance and will be a test of the English court system’s ability to tackle fraud on cryptocurrency platforms.

“We can confirm that we are helping Fetch.ai in the recovery of assets,” a Binance spokesperson said.

“Binance routinely freezes accounts that are identified as having suspicious activity occurring in line with our security policies and commitment to ensuring that users are protected while using our platform.”

Binance, which has an opaque corporate structure, has faced intense regulatory scrutiny amid a worldwide crackdown on cryptocurrencies over concerns that such exchanges could be used for money laundering or to allow consumers to fall victim to scams or runaway bets.

Binance has said it is committed to complying with appropriate local rules wherever it operates and has expanded its international compliance team and advisory board.

“We need to dispel the myth that cryptoassets are anonymous. The reality is that with the right rules and applications they can be tracked, traced and recovered,” Syedur Rahman, a partner at Rahman Ravelli, which is representing Fetch.ai, told Reuters.

Fetch.ai, which is incorporated in England and Singapore and develops AI projects for blockchain databases, alleges fraudsters hacked their way into its cryptocurrency accounts on the Binance exchange on June 6.

Unable to remove the assets because of account restrictions, they allegedly sold them to a linked third party at a fraction of their value in under an hour.

Rahman said Binance, which had notified Fetch.ai of unusual activity in its account, had already frozen a sum and had indicated it would comply with the orders. The claimants will have to prove they are victims of fraud before seeking a recovery order.

“We have been working closely with Binance and local enforcement to obtain details about the hacker,” Fetch.ai said in an emailed statement. “Issuing a court order for the release of this information is a standard process.”

(Reporting by Kirstin RidleyEditing by Mark Potter and Richard Chang)



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , , ,

RBI to HC, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


In a revelation, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has clarified that banks all over the country are witnessing increasing incidents of fraud due to their failure to adhere to its directives issued from time to time. In an affidavit submitted to the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court, the apex bank further disclosed that it doesn’t have the power to conduct investigations in banking frauds, nor does it have the machinery to do it.

The affidavit was filed while hearing a suo moto PIL for Rs25 crore losses caused to UCO Bank. Rajnish Vyas has been appointed as amicus curiae in the PIL. The embezzlement had taken place due to alleged forgery committed by a bank officer at its Wardha and Hinganghat branches. A division bench comprising justices Vinay Deshpande and Amit Borkar adjourned the hearing by six weeks.

Filed by RBI’s counsel SN Kumar, the affidavit added that as a regulator of the banking system in the country, it issued ‘Master Circular of Frauds’ to sensitize banks against scams and to have deterrent systems. “In spite of guidelines issued from time to time, it was observed that the frauds perpetrated in banks showed an increasing trend, mainly on account of non-adherence or improper implementation of circular directives issued by us. To enable the banks to have all current instructions in one place, a master circular incorporating all guidelines, instructions and directives on the subject was issued on August 1, 2001,” the affidavit mentioned.

Moreover, to enable the Government of India to have the required information on frauds, a suitable reporting system was introduced. Though the circular of March 22, 2002, has prescribed the period of reporting of frauds, it was realized that the banks aren’t following it scrupulously, the apex bank said.

At the RBI governor’s instance, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has set up a high-level group to study incidents of fraud and suggest measures to prevent them. “This group observed that banks are not adhering to the time frame stipulated by RBI for reporting fraud cases. It has suggested that suitable penal action should be taken against defaulting banks. The banks are supposed to report frauds within a week of their detection and then a detailed report needs to be submitted in the prescribed format in the next three weeks,” the affidavit said.

The top bank added that to minimize incidents of fraud in the banking system, it has been making continuous efforts and regularly issuing circulars directing the banks to initiate appropriate action to contain them. “The Banking Regulation Act doesn’t empower RBI to conduct any investigations. The action may be initiated only after the offence is established by the law enforcement agencies. It’s mandatory for the banks to lodge a complaint of frauds with the police,” Kumar said.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , , , , ,

Vijay Mallya loses bankruptcy petition amendment High Court battle in UK

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


A consortium of Indian banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) on Tuesday moved a step closer in their attempt to recover debt from loans paid out to Vijay Mallya’s now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines after the High Court in London upheld an application to amend their bankruptcy petition, in favour of waiving their security over the embattled businessman’s assets in India.

Chief Insolvencies and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Michael Briggs handed down his judgment in favour of the banks to declare there is no public policy that prevents a waiver of security rights, as argued by Mallya’s lawyers.

At a virtual hearing, July 26 was set as the date for final arguments for and against granting a bankruptcy order against the 65-year-old Mallya after the banks accused him of trying to “kick matters into the long grass” and called on the “bankruptcy petition to be brought to its inevitable end”.

“I order that permission be given to amend the petition to read as follows: ‘The Petitioners (banks) having the right to enforce any security held are willing, in the event of a bankruptcy order being made, to give up any such security for the benefit of all the bankrupt’s creditors’,” Justice Briggs’ judgment reads.

“There is nothing in the statutory provisions that prevent the Petitioners from giving up security,” he notes.

Mallya’s barrister, Philip Marshall, had referenced witness statements of retired Indian judges in previous hearings to reiterate that there is “public interest under Indian law” by virtue of the banks being nationalised.

However, Justice Briggs found no impediment to the creditors relinquishing their security under Indian law because of the engagement of a “principle concerning public interest” and favoured the submissions made by retired Indian Supreme Court judge Gopala Gowda at a hearing in December 2020 on the matter.

“In my judgment the simple stance taken by Justice Gowda that Section 47 PIA 1920 is evidence of the ability of a secured creditor to relinquish the creditor’s security is to be preferred,” the ruling notes.

The Indian banks, represented by the law firm TLT LLP and barrister Marcia Shekerdemian, were also granted costs in totality for the petition hearings, as the “overall successful” party in the case.

“Dr Mallya should have been extradited by now. He was refused permission to go to the Supreme Court in May last year,” Shekerdemian pointed out, in reference to one of Mallya’s defence planks that the cases against him are “politically motivated”.

Mallya remains on bail in the UK while a “confidential” legal matter, believed to be related to an asylum application, is resolved in connection with the unrelated extradition proceedings.

Meanwhile, the SBI-led consortium of 13 Indian banks, which also includes Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank Ltd, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Co Pvt Ltd as well as an additional creditor, have been pursuing a bankruptcy order in the UK concering a judgment debt which stands at over GBP 1 billion.

Mallya’s legal team contends that the debt remains disputed and that the ongoing proceedings in India inhibit a bankruptcy order being made in the UK.

“The pandemic is having a much more severe impact in India than here, which has slowed things up. Dr Mallya would like things to be faster,” said his barrister Philip Marshall.

The case is now scheduled for a day-long hearing on July 26 for Justice Briggs to hear arguments from both sides on whether there is any reason why it should look “behind the judgment debt” to consider all such factors and therefore not grant a bankruptcy order.

Presenting a brief background to the petition, which dates back to 2018, the latest judgment describes Mallya as an “entrepreneur businessman” who had considerable financial success in India and other parts of the world as Chief Executive Officer and shareholder of Kingfisher Airways (KFA) and controlling director and main shareholder in United Breweries Holdings Ltd (UBHL).

“The cost of aviation fuel rose in 2008, and the value of the rupee declined against the dollar. Dr Mallya decided to borrow substantial sums from some of the Petitioners,” the judgment reads.

“Dr Mallya provided personal guarantees for the sums borrowed from the Petitioners in 2010. UBHL also provided a guarantee,” it adds.

The debt in question comprises principal and interest, plus compound interest at a rate of 11.5 per cent per annum from June 25, 2013. Mallya has made applications in India to contest the compound interest charge.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , ,

HC to RBI, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


After finding that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is taking a lenient approach towards erring officials of various banks where scams were detected, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court directed it to act tough in such situation.

Expressing concern over increasing numbers of bank frauds and scams coming to fore, a division bench comprising justices Sunil Shukre and Avinash Gharote further asked the apex bank to take penal action against erring officials, in whichever position they are, for not complying with its guidelines.

The directives came while hearing a suo moto criminal PIL (No. 614/2017) regarding Rs25 crore losses caused to the UCO Bank due to alleged embezzlement of funds by its own officers. The HC had appointed Rajnish Vyas as amicus curiae to plead the PIL.

While adjourning the hearing by three weeks, the bench told the top bank that its earlier affidavit was “unsatisfactory” and asked it to file a detailed reply on action it has taken or proposed to take against the UCO bank officials concerned.

“The RBI is required to play the role of a real sentinel. Therefore, we expect that its reply would reflect its concern about prevention of such frauds and scams and taking punitive action against those responsible for it,” the bench said.

The judges noted that the RBI doesn’t have any independent machinery to carry out the investigation into any fraud, but it can certainly take penal action under the powers conferred upon it in Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the RBI Act, 1934, against the erring banks and also the officials concerned.

“On going through various provisions made in Banking Regulation Act, 1949, one would not require any time to grasp the fact that the powers of RBI in controlling the affairs of the banks are enormous. That’s the reason why it is called the central bank having the supervision and control over all the banks and financial institutions engaged in the business of banking in India,” the judges said.

Way paved way for confiscating MSCB assets

The Nagpur bench of the High Court on Thursday vacated the stay on confiscation of movable assets of Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank (MSCB) in Mahal. The orders came while hearing a bank’s petition for staying the confiscation orders in a case filed by Bhandara’s Wainganga Cooperative Sugar Mill workers alleging Rs13.89 crore misappropriation by its officials.

The case was listed before a division bench comprising justices Nitin Jamdar and Anil Kilor, which rejected the bank’s contention.

Earlier, the Supreme Court on December 4, 2019, had ordered recovering the amount from the bank within six months.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , , ,

HC to RBI, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Delhi High Court on Monday said that according to the Supreme Court’s decision on withdrawal of money by depositors of scam-hit PMC bank for exigencies, exceptions can be carved out for urgent medical and educational requirements.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh asked the depositors, whose needs have been highlighted before the court in a PIL, to once again approach the RBI-appointed administratorof PMC bank giving details of their financial needs along for medical or educational reasons within three weeks.

The bench asked the administrator to look into the applications by the depositors and take a decision within a further period of two weeks and communicate the same to the court before the next date of hearing on February 26.

During the hearing, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) told the court that the apex court asked it to consider the educational and medical requirements of depositors as per directives issued by the top bank.

RBI said its directives only provide for considering medical emergencies and not educational emergencies which everyone would have.

The bench, however, said the apex court has clearly mentioned both medical and educational emergencies and it was going to go by that.

The court was hearing an application by consumer rights activist Bejon Kumar Misra seeking directions to the RBI to consider other needs of PMC Bank depositors such as education, weddings and dire financial position, not just serious medical emergencies as being done at present.

The application was filed through advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi in Misra’s main PIL seeking directions to the RBI to ease the moratorium on withdrawals from the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank during the coronavirus pandemic.

Sudhi, during the hearing, contended that the apex court order had come when the situation was normal and now during the pandemic, the depositors have been able to withdraw only a total of Rs one lakh since restrictions on withdrawals from the bank was imposed by RBI in September 2019.

He argued that it was very difficult for depositors to meet their various needs from just Rs one lakh in more than a year.

RBI argued that while it sympathises with the plight of the depositors, but everyone would have some or the other financial emergency and if money to the tune of Rs five lakh was released to all, as provided in case of medical emergencies, the bank would go under and depositors would not get their entire deposits back.

RBI said it was trying to keep the bank functioning in the interests of the depositors and had floated an expression of interest for investing in it and has received some bids.

The PMC Bank has been put under restrictions, including limiting withdrawals, by the RBI, following the unearthing of a Rs 4,355-crore scam.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , ,