KPL works on a model in which it undertakes overall planning, dredging and renders marine services but cargo handling terminals are developed primarily through private public partnership on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis.
KPL handles coal for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) while rest of the business is dealt by BOT operators, the CBI FIR claimed.
Chettinad International Coal Terminal Pvt Ltd (CICTPL) was engaged in 2010 as one of the BOT operators for non-TNEB coal terminal on revenue share basis, it said.
In an alleged violation of Licence Agreement, CICTPL is paying the revenue share after deducting the augmentation charges, it said.
When demand for full revenue was raised by KPL, CICTPL had invoked dispute resolution mechanism but the expert committee constituted under it rejected claims of CICTPL.
The outstanding revenue share portion of augmentation charges as on July 31, 2012 was Rs 17.21 crores, CBI alleged.
"The reliable information revealed that Sanjay Kumar and Gunasekar (both general managers at KPL) in criminal conspiracy with M/s CICTPL company dishonestly failed to realise the outstanding amount of Rs 17.21 crores without invoking the available bank guarantee of CICTPL," it alleged.
"Despite having the bank guarantee of CICTPL for Rs 23.36 crore and approval of competent authority, Gunasekar dishonestly did not take any action on the internal note of the operations department. Sanjay Kumar also did not take any action for invokinq the available bank guarantee of M/s CICTPL to recover the outstanding dues of Rs 19.66 crore," it said.
In between arbitration proceedings were held during which it was decided that the total dues towards CICTPL have increased to Rs 55.46 crore, CBI FIR alleged.
CBI has alleged that the acts of Kumar and Gunasekar allowed CICTPL to retain about Rs 55 crores from 2010 onwards.
It is reliably learnt that Kumar and Gunasekar deliberately allowed the non-collection of revenue share out of the total revenue.
CBI alleged that the illegal retention of the amount by the company for which it was not eligible amounts to causing undue pecuniary advantage under Prevention of Corruption Act.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
