Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

59. The relevant paragraphs in the said judgment dated 29.02.2024 which makes comments / render findings as regards the very same Audit Report/s are as under:-

"107. In the Annexure to the said Minutes, in reference to the allegations against the petitioner, the only evidence noted is the Forensic Audit Report. Apart from reference to the Forensic Audit Report, there is no other document or reasoning recorded in the Minutes to conclude that an event of wilful default has occurred.
144. This brings this Court to consider the effect of the Forensic Audit Report dated 3.6.2019. As recorded above, this Court, vide order dated 28.11.2023 had directed the parties to place on record the document which showed the satisfaction arrived at by the respondent-Bank to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, on 16.12.2023, placed on record a compilation annexing Minutes of Meeting dated 24.2.2020, wherein, the decision to issue show cause notice to the petitioner was taken. In the said Minutes, it is recorded that the decision to issue show cause notice is taken on the basis of the Forensic Audit Report. In the column "Document/ Evidence", which proved the event of wilful default, it is mentioned "Forensic Audit Report of M/s GSA and Associates". Thus, the whole basis for issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner is the Forensic Audit Report dated 3.6.2019.
149. However, a perusal of the Forensic Audit Report, specially Clause D(iv), reveals that the said Report has clarified that the source of funds of investments made in subsidiaries was not verified in the Forensic Audit Report as the same were made prior to the period of review. The relevant portion of Forensic Audit Report is reproduced as under:-

150. Thus, the Forensic Audit Report did not verify the source of funds which were invested in the subsidiaries. The respondent-Bank, could not have issued show cause notice to the petitioner for wilful default, without verifying the source of funds that were invested. Unless the funds that were invested were found to be borrowed funds, the respondent-Bank did not have jurisdiction to invoke the Master Circular. The very genesis of "diversion" or "siphoning of" funds is dependent on the funds being borrowed funds. The reliance placed by the respondent-Bank on the Forensic Audit Report is clearly misconceived. The Forensic Audit Report does not record any conclusion regarding diversion or siphoning of funds qua the petitioner. The reliance placed by the respondent-Bank on the Forensic Audit Report to issue show cause notice of wilful default to the petitioner is clearly misplaced."