LAWS(GJH)-2019-7-56

VARUN CHUNILAL SHAH Vs. BANK OF INDIA

Decided On July 23, 2019
Varun Chunilal Shah Appellant
V/S
BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers:

(2.) The subject matter pertains to the supply of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as per the order passed by the the Central Information Commission. The petitioner represents one 'C. K. Shah Group' engaged in business of real estate and construction of residential and commercial building. It is the case of the petitioner that the in the year 1996, the petitioner group entered into the partnership with another group namely 'V. K. Shah Group' and started business under the banner of Bonanza Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which was the Company holding by 'C. K. Shah Group' and subsequently changed the name to 'Yuvraj Industries Ltd.' 'V. K. Shah Group' started acquiring the share holding of 'Yuvraj Industries Ltd.' and became the majority share holder.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that 'V. K. Shah Group' in the guise of 'Yuvraj Industries Ltd.' for the purpose of their project, known as 'Bhadralok Project' obtained loans from the various Banks and instead of using such loan amount for the purpose of project, diverted the funds for their own purpose. Though such illegal unauthorized act on behalf of the 'V. K. Shah Group' brought to the Notice of Bank of India- respondent No.1 herein, the Bank failed to initiate any action and ultimately, recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, were initiated. He submitted that the Bank acted in a partial manner only against the members of 'C. K. Shah Group', whereas all the misdeeds and illegalities committed by the 'V. K. Shah Group' were ignored. The project property namely 'Bhadralok Project' was put on auction where the respondent No.3 participated and the petitioner had also participated and since the offer of the petitioner was higher at the relevant time as compared to the respondent No.3. However, without assigning any reason, the Bank canceled the auction.