CBI heat on ~2,919cr Rotomac loan default
BAD LOAN? Three premises raided in Kanpur after FIR; Kothari family questioned
NEW DELHI/KANPUR/LUCKNOW: Investigators from two federal agencies began questioning on Monday pen maker Rotomac’s director Vikram Kothari and his family members, fearing a fraud in the company’s default of loans of ₹2,919 crore borrowed from seven banks.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a case at 4am against Kothari, his wife Sadhana and their son Rahul — all directors in Rotomac Global Private Limited — and unknown bank officials after a complaint from Bank of Baroda.
By the end of the day, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) too had jumped into the fray, launching a money laundering investigation against the Kotharis.
The case comes on the heels of a ₹11,400-crore alleged fraud in Punjab National Bank (PNB) in which celebrity jewellery designer Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi are accused. The alacrity with which the CBI and ED have launched their investigation into the Rotomac case highlights the government’s desire to prevent a repeat of the PNB case.
Kothari himself answered the phone when a Hindustan Times reporter tried to reach him on Sunday and later, in a face-toface meeting, spoke on record amidst rumours that he had, like Modi and Choksi, fled the country. “I am very much in Kanpur with my family, running my business here,” Kothari said on Sunday. “So far as the issue of loans is concerned, I have been in talks with banks for long. Three meetings have taken place with the banks. The matter is pending with the tribunal,” he added.
The issue seems to be one of default, although Kothari has a problem with that definition too. Kothari was declared a defaulter over a year ago and an FIR was lodged by the officials of the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) after his cheques worth ₹600 crore bounced, which Kothari denied. “Show me one cheque of mine that has bounced. This is slanderous. I believe in the judicial system,” he said.
An officer in the CBI seemed to think it could be more. He said that the Kotharis allegedly used fake documents and received credit for exports that they round-tripped through an offshore firm without actually carrying out a trade.
“The questioning of Kothari, his wife and son is on. The agency has also sealed a residential premises and an office of Rotomac directors in New Delhi,” a CBI spokesperson said on Monday.
NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday said it was looking at the case pertaining to special CBI judge BH Loya seriously and said it would order a probe if there was sufficient evidence to raise suspicion on the circumstances surrounding his death.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra assured senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who alleged that pressure was being exerted on some lawyers not to appear in the case, that it would “accord highest amount of seriousness” in hearing the case. “We are duty bound to do so,” Justice DY Chandrachud told Dave, asking him to place relevant material in his possession to justify his plea for an independent probe.
Judge Loya died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague’s daughter.
The judge was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case and questions have been raised about the circumstances around his death, which several Opposition parties have called “mysterious” and have even made a representation to the President seeking an independent probe. Senior advocate Dave, appearing for an advocates’ body from Mumbai, complained that the Bar Council of India (BCI) had issued him a notice accusing him of “misconduct” as he had made statements related to the case in newspapers, TV channels and in the court. This, he said, amounted to exerting pressure on lawyers for raising the issue.
The BCI, he submitted, is a regulatory body for legal education and cannot “intimidate” lawyers.
The Chief Justice told Dave that nobody can stop anyone from appearing in the case. “We are not taking any note of the BCI notice. You can argue. You have the liberty and freedom to argue. BCI is not here. We are hearing you. If there is some kind of suspicion in this case and calls for an investigation, we will definitely proceed to consider it,” he said.
Dave also complained that senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Maharashtra government, had not supplied him many documents on which he relied while opposing the petitions for probe.
To this, the bench told Rohatgi it will not look into any documents that has not been supplied to Dave.
The matter will next be heard on March 5.