https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456351 RBI's fraud-classification framework under the Master Directions on Frauds was treated as a preventive regulatory mechanism issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, enabling banks to detect, report and monitor suspected fraud. The Court noted that the forensic audit was not a unilateral exercise and that the audit material disclosed adverse findings against the borrower's account. On that basis, the bank's decision to classify the loan account as fraud was upheld. The challenge based on alleged violation of natural justice was not examined on merits because that question was pending before the Supreme Court. en-us Wed, 22 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:46:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456351 RBI's fraud-classification framework under the Master Directions on Frauds was treated as a preventive regulatory mechanism issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, enabling banks to detect, report and monitor suspected fraud. The Court noted that the forensic audit was not a unilateral exercise and that the audit material disclosed adverse findings against the borrower's account. On that basis, the bank's decision to classify the loan account as fraud was upheld. The challenge based on alleged violation of natural justice was not examined on merits because that question was pending before the Supreme Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456351