The State Bank of India filed an application in the Supreme Court asking for clarity on the ruling on the classification of fraud borrowers. The bank also sought the court to clarify that banks can decide the adjudication timeline based on the urgency of the case.
State Bank of India has asked for clarification on the top court’s ruling of March 27 that the banks could decide the adjudication timeline based on the urgency of the case.
On March 27, the Supreme Court dismissed the State Bank of India’s appeal, upholding the Telangana High Court’s judgement, and decided that it was fairly practical for lender banks to provide the borrowers a chance to be heard before declaring their accounts as fraud.
In the latest appeal, the bank tried to make it clear that providing relevant extracts from the forensic auditor report would serve the ends of justice and be prospective in nature.
According to the application, giving law enforcement authorities with the entire Forensic Auditor Report would hinder their ability to conduct an investigation since it would provide the perpetrators with advance notice of their crimes through the disclosure of important and confidential data. The borrower would have the chance to postpone the inquiry, interfere with the evidence, and escape the country if all the evidence against him were made public at that point.
This is particularly important considering that the borrower’s own documents were used to prepare the forensic report, which served as a base for the judgement, and that the borrower or representative did take part in the forensic audit process. According to the applicant, providing a relevant extract from the forensic audit report would thereby serve the ends of justice.
Citing the 2019 SBI Vs. Jah Developers ruling from the SC, SBI asserts that the time limit set for borrowers to make representations is also approved and that only hearing by representation are acceptable.
SBI has asked the SC to clarify that the judgment’s application is made prospectively in operation so that its effects do not affect earlier decisions.
