Gupta links: South Africa court allows Bank of Baroda to shut operations

March 13, 2018 10:20 pm | Updated March 14, 2018 03:43 pm IST - Johannesburg

 Employees and contractors of the Optimum Coal Mine in Hendrina, owned by the controversial Gupta family, demonstrate in front of the gates of the mine in Hendrina, South Africa on February 22, 2018. Workers were on strike because of the Bank of Baroda withdrawing services in South Africa and reduced the operations to a standstill as they marched to hand over a memorandum to the company’s CEO.

Employees and contractors of the Optimum Coal Mine in Hendrina, owned by the controversial Gupta family, demonstrate in front of the gates of the mine in Hendrina, South Africa on February 22, 2018. Workers were on strike because of the Bank of Baroda withdrawing services in South Africa and reduced the operations to a standstill as they marched to hand over a memorandum to the company’s CEO.

A top South African court has allowed Bank of Baroda to close its operations in the country next month, over its links with the controversial India-born Gupta brothers who are facing massive corruption allegations.

Judge Ntendeya Mavundla of the Pretoria High Court on Tuesday dismissed with costs an application by 20 companies linked to the Guptas seeking to stop the Bank of Baroda (BoB) from closing all its accounts and leaving South Africa. The Indian state-owned bank announced last month that it had decided to close down operations in South Africa in line with a revision of its global strategy.

BoB was the only bank that had been working with the Gupta companies after all South African banks severed ties with them following corruption allegations against Ajay, Atul and Rajesh Gupta involving billions of rands.

The three brothers, as well as Duduzane Zuma, son of former president Jacob Zuma who was forced to resign last month, are being sought by authorities investigating these allegations, but the whereabouts of all four are unknown.

Mavundla said in his judgment that the courts could not interfere with BoB’s decision to leave the country.

“The respondent’s rights to trade or not to trade supersedes whatever right, if any, the applicants might have.

“I further conclude that the balance of convenience far outweighs that of the applicant’s and tilts in favour of (BoB),” Mavundla said.

“Put differently, the courts cannot compel the respondent to keep the doors of its business open for whatever duration,” the judge added.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.