Tribunal allows application under I&B Code, refers fraud case to SFIO for detailed investigation

The Tribunal found the application maintainable under the I&B Code, setting aside arguments of res judicata. However, the Forensic Audit Report was deemed insufficient as standalone evidence for fraud recovery. The Tribunal highlighted the limitations of summary proceedings in addressing complex fraudulent transactions, leading to a referral of the matter to the SFIO for further investigation. Directions included forwarding documents to the Central Government, SFIO involvement, and cooperation from Bank of Maharashtra. No costs were awarded, and parties were permitted to take legal action based on SFIO findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application under Sections 66, 25(2), 69, and 70 of the I&B Code, 2016.
2. Sufficiency of the Forensic Audit Report as evidence.
3. Scope of summary proceedings under the Code to address complex fraudulent transactions.
4. Necessity of further investigation by institutions like SFIO.

Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Application:
The Tribunal considered whether the application under Sections 66, 25(2), 69, and 70 of the I&B Code, 2016, was maintainable. The Respondents argued that the application was not maintainable due to the principles of res-judicata, citing a previous order where the Tribunal had directed the RP to initiate criminal proceedings. However, the Tribunal decided to consider the application on its merits, given the new evidence provided by the Forensic Audit Report.

2. Sufficiency of the Forensic Audit Report:
The Tribunal scrutinized the Forensic Audit Report submitted by BDO India LLP, noting several shortcomings and disclaimers. The report mentioned that it was prepared solely for the Bank of Maharashtra and not intended for third-party reliance. Additionally, there were gaps in the data, such as unidentified transactions and discrepancies in the claimed amounts. The Tribunal concluded that the Forensic Audit Report alone could not serve as conclusive evidence for recovering the alleged fraud amount.

3. Scope of Summary Proceedings:
The Tribunal examined whether the summary nature of proceedings under the I&B Code could address complex issues like fraudulent transactions. It noted that the allegations required a more detailed investigation beyond the scope of summary proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a thorough investigation by a specialized agency like the SFIO to ascertain the veracity of the allegations and counter-allegations.

4. Necessity of Further Investigation:
Given the complexity and seriousness of the allegations, the Tribunal decided to refer the matter to the SFIO for further investigation. It directed the RP to forward all relevant documents, including the Forensic Audit Report, to the Central Government, which would then refer the case to the SFIO. The Tribunal also instructed the Bank of Maharashtra to assist the SFIO in the investigation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of the application with the following directions:
1. The RP must forward all relevant documents to the Central Government within three weeks.
2. The RP must provide these documents to all parties, adhering to principles of natural justice.
3. The Central Government must refer the matter to the SFIO for further investigation into the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, Bank of Maharashtra, and related entities.
4. The Bank of Maharashtra must assist the SFIO in the investigation.
5. Parties are free to pursue appropriate legal action based on the SFIO's findings.
6. The application was disposed of in light of these directions, with no order as to costs.

---