IMF calls for 'urgent' action by India amid slowdown

New Delhi, May 9: Three promoters of Ram Dev International, recently booked by the CBI for allegedly cheating a consortium of six banks to the tune of Rs 411 crore, have already fled the country before the State Bank of India reached the agency with the complaint, officials said on Saturday.

The CBI had recently booked the company engaged in export of Basmati rice to the West Asian and European countries and its directors Naresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Sangita on the basis of complaint from the State Bank of India (SBI), which suffered the loss of more than Rs 173 crore, they said.

The company had three rice milling plants, besides eight sorting and grading units in Karnal district with offices in Saudi Arabia and Dubai for trading purposes, the SBI complaint said.

Besides SBI, other members of consortium are Canara Bank, Union Bank of India, IDBI, Central Bank of India and Corporation Bank, they said.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not carry out any searches in the matter because of the coronavirus-induced lockdown, the officials said.

The agency will start the process of summoning the accused, incase they do not join the investigation, appropriate legal action will be initiated, they said.

According to the complaint filed by SBI, the account had become non-performing asset (NPA) on January 27, 2016.

The banks conducted a joint inspection of properties in August and October, nearly 7-9 months later only to find Haryana Police security guards deployed there, they said.

"On inquiry, it has been come to notice that borrowers are absconding and have left the country," the complaint filed on February 25, 2020, after over a year of account becoming NPA, the officials said.

The complaint alleged that borrowers had removed entire machinery from old plant and fudged the balance sheets in order to unlawfully gain at the cost of banks'' funds, it said.

Patna, Jun 25: At least 83 people died due to thunderstorms in Bihar in the last 24 hours, according to Chief Minister's Office.

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar announced Rs 4 lakhs each for the families of deceased.

Thirteen people died in Gopalganj, 8 each in Madhubani and Nawada, 6 each in Baghalpur and Siwan, 5 each in Darbhanga, Banka, East Champaran and 3 each in Khagaria and Aurangabad.

Due to thunderstorms, two people each lost their lives in West Champaran, Kishanganj, Jamui, Jahanabad, Purnia, Supaul, Buxar, Kaimur while one death each was reported in Samastipur, Shivhar, Saran, Sitamarhi and Madhepura.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea by Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

The court also said that alleged sufferings in prison can't be grounds to challenge the rejection of mercy petition.

The bench said all relevant material including judgments pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict.

The bench also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna rejected the contentions of the counsel appearing for Singh that entire materials of the case were not placed before the President when he was considering his mercy plea.

The bench, while referring to two files placed before it by the Centre on Tuesday, said that as per the January 15 covering letter which was sent by the Delhi government to the Ministry of Home Affairs, all relevant documents were sent.

The bench noted that detailed judgements of trial court, high court and the Supreme Court, curative petition filed by Singh, his past criminal history and his family background were sent to the Home Ministry by the Delhi government.

"All the documents were taken into consideration by the President while rejecting the mercy petition," the bench said.

The bench also dealt with submissions advanced by the convict's counsel, who had argued that the mercy plea was rejected at "lightning speed".

The bench said that if a mercy petition is expeditiously dealt with, it cannot be assumed that it has been adjudicated upon in a pre-conceived mind.