Plea In Bombay High Court Seeks Probe Into Alleged ₹16.6 Crore Fraudulent Bank Guarantees In Thane-Borivali Twin Tunnel Project

Sanjana Dadmi

12 Feb 2025 11:00 AM

  • Plea In Bombay High Court Seeks Probe Into Alleged ₹16.6 Crore Fraudulent Bank Guarantees In Thane-Borivali Twin Tunnel Project

    A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking an investigation by CBI or SIT into the alleged bank fraud guarantees accepted by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from a private company, Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), for the construction of a Twin Tube Road Tunnel between Thane and Borivali worth around...

    A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking an investigation by CBI or SIT into the alleged bank fraud guarantees accepted by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from a private company, Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), for the construction of a Twin Tube Road Tunnel between Thane and Borivali worth around Rs.16,600.40 crore.

    The petition alleges that fraudulent Bank Guarantees (BRs) were issued by a foreign entity in favour of MMRDA on behalf of MEIL. The PIL has been filed by a senior and investigative journalist, V Ravi Praksash.

    The matter was mentioned today by Advocate Prashant Bhushan before a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre. The Court said that it would hear the matter next week.

    The petition states that Euro Exim Bank, based in St. Lucia and incorporated under the laws of England & Wales, is not a foreign bank recognized by the RBI. It is stated that the Euro Exim Bank issued BRs in favour of MMRDA on behalf of MEIL.

    The petitioner states that SBI authenticated the SWIFT messages of the Euro Exim Bank's BRs without considering any risk and liability and without carrying out basic due diligence.

    The petition refers to a circular of the Public Works Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 19.09.2017 which states that performance security can only be accepted in the form of BRs issued by Nationalized/Scheduled banks. It further refers to a Circular of Finance Account Division, MMRDA dated 15.06.2018, which provides that BRs from only nationalized banks should be accepted for public procurement.

    The petition alleges that MEIL gave 6 fraudulent BRs for the Twin Tube Road Tunnel project. The petition states “The Bank Guarantee is a sham created only to circumvent and play fraud to obtain public funds without providing any secured guarantee, with knowledge that the same could not be realised.”

    Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that there appears to be quid pro quo arrangements between MEIL and political parties in relation to electoral bonds,

    The petition states that the ECI's electoral bond donation data reveals that MEIL was the second-highest donor of electoral bonds. It stated that MEIL purchased electoral bonds worth Rs. 980 cr. between 12 April 2019 and 12 October 2023, it donated Rs. 584 cr. to NJP, 195 cr. to Bharat Rashtra Samithi and Rs. 85 cr. to DMK.

    It is stated that MEIL bagged key projects including the Thane-Borivali tunnel project due to quid pro agreements with political parties.

    The petitioner states that while he has sent several complaints to the RBI, CBI, CAG, and Ministry of Finance about the scam of fraudulent bank guarantees being done with the involvement of SBI and Union Bank of India, no actions have been taken.

    The petitioner thus prays for an investigation by the CBI or SIT into the issue. The petitioner also seeks to direct the MMRDA to terminate the contract awarded to MEIL for the project.

    It is further prayed that pending the final disposal of the petition, MEIL's accounts and assets be frozen to prevent them from transferring any property or funds gained through fraudulent transactions. The petitioner prays for conducting an independent forensic audit of all other contracts and projects handled by MEIL.

    Case title: V. Ravi Prakash vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors.

    Next Story