https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771737 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. en-us Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 May 2025 08:55:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771737 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771737