The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on Bank of Maharashtra officer Shri Ajay Shivaji Kamble and a symbolic cost of Re.1 on the Managing Director of Bank of Maharashtra for repeated non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions in recovery proceedings arising out of the Lilavati Foundation matter.
The Tribunal observed that despite repeated directions, including those contained in Exhibit-375, the bank failed to furnish complete particulars of the assets and liabilities declared by the guarantors while sanctioning credit facilities to the Lilavati Foundation. It had specifically directed disclosure of movable and immovable assets, shareholdings, financial interests in Lilavati Hospital and related entities, trusts, group concerns, and other documents relied upon by the bank to assess the guarantors’ financial worthiness.
Instead of complying with those directions, the Bank of Maharashtra filed an affidavit stating that none of the certificate debtors were reflected in its records as borrowers, guarantors, mortgagors, providers of security or credit-support entities in relation to the facilities extended to the Lilavati Foundation. The Tribunal held that the affidavit failed to answer the specific directions issued and did not amount to compliance.
Also Read Supreme Court Advocate Assaulted on IndiGo Flight; FIR Registered
Noting that the required information had remained outstanding for nearly two years despite repeated opportunities, the Tribunal imposed costs on the concerned officer and the Managing Director, observing that the bank had consistently failed to comply with its earlier directions. The costs are to be deposited with the DRT Bar Association.
The Tribunal granted the bank a final opportunity of three days to file complete compliance, observing that the information sought was material for deciding the discharge application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased certificate debtor. It further recorded that in the event of any further non-compliance, the certificate-holder bank would be at liberty to pursue remedies available in law, including contempt proceedings before the competent forum.
In a separate development, the Tribunal also examined material relating to an account maintained by Splendour Gems Limited with SBM Bank (India) Ltd. It noted that the account remained operational from 20 January 2020 until 15 July 2021, despite the company having gone into liquidation. Observing that transactions in the account could have a bearing on the recovery proceedings, the Tribunal directed SBM Bank to file an affidavit placing on record the complete transaction history, KYC documents, account opening forms, board resolutions, declarations, undertakings and all documents relating to the banking relationship.
Also Read Gauhati HC: Ryan Bowen Cannot Undertake Activities Beyond E-Visa Conditions; Authorities Free to Act
The matter has been listed on 29 June 2026 for further arguments and compliance.