Fraud classification requires higher proof than wilful default; review corrected errors and rejected the bank's allegations on record.

Apparent typographical errors in the earlier judgment were corrected on review, and the respondent bank's fraud classification was rejected because the material on record did not establish fraud. The allegations of diversion, siphoning, questionable investments, lease transactions, expired agreements and advances were found insufficient, particularly where the lender banks were aware of the relevant investments and transactions at the time of restructuring. The order notes that the investments were treated as strategic and funded from cash surpluses or private equity, and that no fresh independent material justified re-agitating the same substratum. It reiterates that fraud must be proved on a higher standard than wilful default.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier judgment required review for correction of typographical errors and for recording detailed findings on the allegations forming the basis of the respondent bank's fraud classification, and whether those very allegations could sustain the declaration of the petitioner's account as fraud.

Analysis: The order records that the earlier judgment contained apparent typographical mistakes, which were corrected. It also examines the grounds relied upon by the respondent bank in the counter-affidavit and finds that the allegations of diversion, siphoning, questionable investments, lease transactions, expired agreements, and advances do not establish fraud on the material placed on record. The order holds that the lender banks were aware of the relevant investments and transactions at the time of restructuring, that the investments were treated as strategic and funded from cash surpluses or private equity rather than borrowed funds, and that no additional independent material justified re-agitating the same substratum for a fraud declaration. It further reiterates that fraud requires a higher degree of proof than wilful default.

Conclusion: The review was allowed, the earlier judgment was reviewed and corrected, and the declaration of the petitioner's account as fraud was held to be unsustainable in law.

---