CBI court rejects discharge plea of businessman held in IOB-led consortium loan fraud

Mumbai, May 12 (PTI) A special court here has refused to discharge a businessman in a multi-crore loan scam in the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), saying that prima-facie a case is made out against him.
Accused Premal Goragandhi's plea was rejected by special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court judge B Y Phad on May 9.
In the detailed order made available on Monday, the court said the case pertains to bank fraud.
The court said that at the stage of deciding discharge applications, it cannot undertake a detailed evaluation of the prosecution witness statements and documents filed by the applicant (accused).
The documents, including the bank records placed by the prosecution, disclose a prima facie case against him under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating, forgery as well as for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The CBI has alleged that a criminal conspiracy was orchestrated by the directors of Parekh Aluminex Limited (PAL), including late Amitabh Arun Parekh, with other co-accused persons, to defraud a consortium of banks led by Indian Overseas Bank.
It contends that PAL's turnover was artificially inflated through circular trading and fictitious transactions, thereby enabling the company to secure enhanced credit facilities from banks.
Goragandhi allegedly played a pivotal role in this conspiracy by acting as a director in three shell companies. These entities were used merely as conduits for generating fictitious sales and purchase transactions with PAL, the CBI said.
It added that the transactions were devoid of any actual movement of goods, and invoices and bills were raised fraudulently to support the false narrative of business activity.
Investigations also revealed that the applicant and his wife received monthly remuneration of Rs 20,000 per company from late Parekh, allegedly for lending their names as directors, thus evidencing monetary gains from the criminal acts, the CBI said.
Goragandhi, in his plea, claimed that he is neither a beneficiary nor has he played any role in the offence.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)