E-Paper
Chandigarh parking scam: MC asks bank to pay ₹1.65 crore
The Chandigarh municipal corporation commissioner Anindita Mitra has asked the bank to deposit the amount within 10 days, failing which the MC will initiate proceedings in accordance with the law against the bank
The UT municipal corporation (MC) commissioner Anindita Mitra has shot off a letter to the managing director-cum-chief executive officer of Canara Bank asking the bank to deposit the amount of ₹1.65 crore after it was found that the parking contractor Paschatya Entertainment Private Limited had allegedly forged the three bank guarantees in connivance with the bank officials.
Mitra has asked the bank to deposit the amount within 10 days, failing which the MC will initiate proceedings in accordance with the law against the bank.
The firm Paschatya Entertainment Private Limited was awarded the contract of 57 Zone-2 parking lots in 2020 that got over in January this year. But the firm failed to pay a licence fee worth ₹7 crore to MC. Following this, the civic body approached the bank concerned to recover the money through bank guarantees submitted by the contractor.
It was then found that three guarantees amounting to ₹1.65 crore were fake. Subsequently, a cheating case was registered against the firm’s directors Sanjay Sharma and Lalita Sharma.
On March 7, police arrested Sanjay Sharma, director of the firm from his office in Delhi. This was followed by the arrest of Ravi Chandra Prakash, the then bank officer of Syndicate Bank, Delhi, for issuing forged bank guarantees. Syndicate Bank later merged with Canara Bank.
Anil Kumar, the parking firm’s contractor also surrendered on March 23 and his accountant Ajay Kumar of Delhi was arrested.
The letter stated that the contractor submitted a forged bank guarantee with the connivance of bank officials of the Canara Bank branch in Mori Gate. Otherwise, it would not have been possible for the contractor to submit a forged bank guarantee and commit fraud and cheating with the civic body. The bank and its officials are equally responsible for cheating and committing forgery with MC. The criminal intent of the bank officials stands corroborated with their arrest, the letter said.
Quoting a Supreme Court judgment, the commissioner stated that even the apex court in the case of State Bank of India vs Shyama Devi held that for an employer to be liable, it is not enough that employment afforded the servant or agent an opportunity of committing the crime, but what is relevant is whether the crime, in form of fraud, was perpetrated by the servant during the course of his employment. Once this is established, the employer would be liable for the employee’s wrongful act, even, if they amount to a crime, the letter stated.
