Mohit Kamboj claims he is no longer associated with the company that took the Rs 68 cr loan; the bank has asked him not to deal with his own properties
Mohit Kamboj, the richest candidate in the Maharashtra Assembly elections in October 2014, who had declared assets of over Rs 350 crore, to the Election Commission, continues to be in trouble.
The State Bank of India has asked Kamboj, who was the richest candidate in the Assembly elections, not to deal with his properties, including a flat at Puja Casa at Bandra where he stays. Pic/Shadab Khan
Last month, the State Bank of India issued a notice regarding his property mortgaged to it, for non-repayment of a loan of Rs 68.88-crore. The loan had been taken by the firm KBJ Jewel Industry India Pvt Ltd, however, Kamboj claims that he is no longer associated with it. The bank has asked Kamboj not to deal with his own properties including a flat in Pali Hill’s Puja Casa, where he resides.
Kamboj, who was the BJP candidate from Dindoshi and had lost to Sunil Prabhu of the Shiv Sena, is the president of BJP’s Uttar Bhartiya Morcha. The bank notice states that, the company had sought a loan from the bank’s consortium, which also has Union Bank, against various assets, creating security for the loan amount.
Kamboj’s properties include the Pali Hill flat, units in industrial estates in Lower Parel and a flat in Worli too. Even before this, banks have issued notices against Kamboj twice for non-repayment of loans. While one was for a Goa property, the other was for the flat in Worli.
The notice (issued on May 30), a copy of which is available with mid-day, is issued by State Bank of India’s Stressed Assets Management Branch. The notice states that the debt was classified as a non-performing asset in November 2014 after the conduct of the financial assistance became irregular. A detailed query mailed to SBI’s Public Relations Officer received no response.
The other side
Kamboj, on the other hand, claimed that he was removed as the director of the company in 2014 and is no longer associated with the firm. “In 2014, after the High Court’s order I was removed as the director. The company was sold, after which the new director had some issues with the bank and there was no repayment. The bank has initiated a restructure process. No notice has been served to me, the notice was sent to the company. The ownership of the firm changed in 2014 and the new directors will now get me back my personal guarantee from the bank and the matter is in arbitration. Hence, the bank might have issued the notice. My name reflects in the notice because I was director then,” he said.