Yes Bank-DHFL case: Special court refuses to discharge businessman Satyan Tandon

Representative image

A special court here has refused to discharge businessman Satyan Tandon in the Yes Bank-DHFL loan case, saying charges against him cannot be called "groundless" at this stage.

Considering the specific allegations against him and the serious nature of offence, it is necessary to give the prosecution an opportunity to prove its case on merits, the court held.

Special CBI judge RB Rote rejected Tandon's discharge application on September 11. The reasoned order was made available on Monday.

Tandon, one of the directors of Wizard Construction India Private Limited (WCIPL), is accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of being a conspirator in the fraud.

As per the CBI, Yes Bank, led by its then CEO Rana Kapoor, extended loans of over Rs 3,700 crore to DHFL controlled by Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan in exchange for pecuniary benefit.

The funds were siphoned off through several entities of Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan and entities of other co-conspirators under the garb of real estate financing, the CBI claimed.

The CBI alleged that Tandon's firm, Wizard Construction India Pvt Ltd., received funds from Sanjay Chhabria's Radius Group. These funds were part of the loans from Yes Bank to DHFL that were diverted, it said.

Tondon, through his lawyer, submitted the allegations against him are were "totally preposterous and false" and that he was not present and involved in sanctioning and disbursing of the loan.

There is no material on record that the applicant was aware of the transaction, his lawyer argued.

The court noted that the prosecution presented statements from several witnesses, including a former Yes Bank official and an SRA sub-engineer, to support its case against Tandon.

Considering the material on record at this premature stage, it cannot be said there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, the court said.

It cannot be said that the charges against the accused are groundless, the court added.

The court said, on the basis of evidence on record and the complex issues involved in it, the case is required to be decided on merits.