Jaisalmer Police on Monday arrested former State Bank of India (SBI) Chairman Pratip Chaudhuri in an alleged loan scam. According to a report published in Times of India, the case is related to the Godawan Group, which took an Rs 24 crore loan from SBI in 2008 to construct a hotel.
Chaudhuri has been alleged to have sold properties worth Rs 200 crore for just Rs 25 crore after the bank seized them for defaulting on the loan. In a clarification issued by The State Bank of India, following Chaudhuri’s arrest, the approvals for sale of Godawan properties to Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) were taken in January 2014 and the assignment to the ARC was completed in March 2014.
Chaudhuri had retired from the bank’s service in 2013 and had joined the ARC’s board in October 2014.
The market value of the property was assessed as Rs 160 crore in 2017, the newspaper report said. When the properties were sold for a lower valuation, Godawan Group had approached courts.
Reacting to the news, former SBI Deputy Managing Director said in a tweet: “Absolutely pathetic , is the system being gamed again by defaulters despite all efforts by Modi govt, time for overhaul of judicial processes to improve transparency and introduce accountability @PMOIndia.”
He further questioned Chaudhuri’s arrest stating “without notice and without summons, how can police from another state arrest someone in Delhi, where is the due process of law.”
Former State Bank of India (SBI) Chairman Rajnish Kumar called the arrest of Pratip Chaudhuri a motivated action. “This seems to be a case of highly motivated, high-handed action. This seems to be an error of judgment. There is a due process and set of rules laid out by the RBI for the sale of assets to ARCs. Where is the corruption here?” Kumar asked.
SBI, in its statement, clarified that all due processes were followed while making the said sale to ARC. The bank has already offered its cooperation to the Law Enforcement and Judicial authorities and will provide further information, if any, that may be called for from their side.
“It appears from the copies of the proceedings now accessed by us that the Hon’ble Court does not appear to have been briefed correctly on the sequence of events. In as much as SBI was not a party to this case, there was no occasion for the views of SBI being heard as part of this proceedings,” the bank said.
