Detecting and tracing the money defaulters of the country NewsX stepped in day 43 of its 100-day investigation. On Thursday, we opened the case number 28 of the Non-Performing Assets (NPA) list. Today’s case is about Kolkata based firm Ma Bhairabi Himghar Private Limited which allegedly owes 2.8 crore rupees to Union Bank of India. The company was incorporated in 1996 which committed several money defaults with increasing loans. According to our list, the company owes Union Bank of India 2.8 crore rupees which has now been classified as an NPA. The registered address of the company is Chatterjee International centre 33 a, JL Nehru road, a-11, Kolkata.
According to the data with the registrar of companies with the ministry of corporate affairs, Ma Bhairabi Himghar Pvt Ltd was incorporated in March 1996 with an authorized capital of 1 crore rupees. The company held it’s last AGM in August 2010 and filed its last balance sheet in March 2010. According to the RoC records, the directors of the company are Narayan Chandra Ghoshal, Indushekhar Chakraborty and Moheshwar Chakraborty.
Narayan Chandra Ghoshal appears on the NewsX NPA list as well, along with 9 other directors. As we dug into the paper trail, we found this e-auction notice issued by State Bank of India which called for an auction in September 2014. The notice reads, Ma Bhairabi Himghar Pvt Ltd as a borrower and mentions 9 guarantors including Narayan Ghosha. It further shows that the company has outstanding dues worth 5 crore rupees and has listed out 2 properties for auction. The auction notice mentions 2 properties, the 1st property has a reserve price of 3.7cr, while the second one has a reserve price of 0.2 crore rupees.
So, according to this notice the bank was hoping to recover 5 crore rupees through the sale of properties with a cumulative reserve price of almost 4 cr that’s the closest to loan value to auction value we’ve seen so far. Then we hit the ground, when we visited the registered address, we could not locate the office. we then spoke to the owner of another company on the same floor, and according to him, no company with the name of Ma Bhairabhi Himgar ever existed there.
When we dug further, we found the ward of Narayan Chandra Ghoshal Bharati Chattopadhyay listed as a beneficiary under Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojna Gramin. Pradhan Mantri Gramin Awaas Yojna is a social welfare flagship programme. It was created by the Indian government to provide housing for rural poor in India…this programme was launched in 2015 this could then possibly imply that Narayan Ghoshal’s family might currently be under tight financial circumstance or an attempt to defraud the yojna, which we can’t say.
As we dug further into the paper trail, we found this 2010 order copy of the Calcutta high court, which reveals that the director of the company sought police protection and the court has further directed the state on the same matter. This just reflects how no case is entirely black or white, there are always convoluted shades of grey, but we can certainly join the dots and consider this as a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. We wrote an email to the company, but haven’t received a response yet.
We also wrote to the bank, but are yet to hear them from them. So this is what we know so far, Narayan Chandra Ghoshal started Ma Bhairabi Himghar Pvt Ltd in 1996. Indushekhar Chakraborty and Maheshwar Chakraborty joined the company in 2013. According to our NPA list, the company owes Union Bank of India, 2.8 crore rupees, further, State Bank of India called for an auction in 2014 and listed 2 of its properties for auction. The 1st property’s reserve price was 3.7 cr and the 2nd one had a reserve price of 0.2 cr, taking the total to almost 4 crores.
Not every NPA spirals into hundred and thousands of crores of loss and some NPAs could be a result of the genuine loss of businesses, but this too does contribute to India’s ever-rising problem of bad loans. In this case, at least the collateral with banks was closer to the value of the loan. Much different to most other cases where the auction value was a fraction of the loan loss. A telling insight into how smaller loans tend to be more tightly controlled and bigger defaulters manage to twist the system.