RICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK - Loan Default Case

RICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK - Loan Default CaseRICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK - Loan Default CaseRICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK - Loan Default CaseRICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK - Loan Default Case
  • Home
  • Interesting Blogs Posts
    • Blog Posts
    • In the News
  • Case in Brief
  • Court Proceedings
    • Details of Court Case
    • HC Clarification - NEW
    • High Court Judgement
    • Translation Comparison
  • Enforcement (RICBL & HC)
    • RICBL Actions
    • Grievance to MOICE
    • Subsistence Allowance
    • Grievance to BAR
    • MOICE Response
  • Management/RICBL?
  • Relevant Officials
  • Timeline of Events
  • Annexures & Evidences
    • Annexures & Evidence 1
    • Annexures & Evidence 2
    • Loan Signatory (Mindmap)

RICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK - Loan Default Case

RICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK - Loan Default CaseRICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK - Loan Default CaseRICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK - Loan Default Case

Only 4 EMPLOYEES SUFFER IN RICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK LOAN DEFAULT CASE

Only 4 EMPLOYEES SUFFER IN RICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK LOAN DEFAULT CASEOnly 4 EMPLOYEES SUFFER IN RICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK LOAN DEFAULT CASEOnly 4 EMPLOYEES SUFFER IN RICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK LOAN DEFAULT CASE

4 employees were penalized Nu. 8.5m each for loans defaulted by Ugyen Wangchuk - a drama orchestrated by Legal Dept. of RICBL

  • Home
  • Interesting Blogs Posts
    • Blog Posts
    • In the News
  • Case in Brief
  • Court Proceedings
    • Details of Court Case
    • HC Clarification - NEW
    • High Court Judgement
    • Translation Comparison
  • Enforcement (RICBL & HC)
    • RICBL Actions
    • Grievance to MOICE
    • Subsistence Allowance
    • Grievance to BAR
    • MOICE Response
  • Management/RICBL?
  • Relevant Officials
  • Timeline of Events
  • Annexures & Evidences
    • Annexures & Evidence 1
    • Annexures & Evidence 2
    • Loan Signatory (Mindmap)

RICBL VS. UGYEN WANGCHUK - A Comprehensive Case Study

Only 4 employees were made liable for the repayment of loans defaulted by Ugyen Wangchuk and Tshering Pem of Druk Tsentop Construction?

  • Jigme Namgyal :- Nu. 8,532,773.32
  • Jurme Chetsho :- Nu. 8,532,773.32
  • Ugyen Lhamo.  :- Nu. 8,532,773.32 
  • Tashi Penjor      :- Nu. 8,532,773.32

    

Total : Nu. 34,131,093.37  (3.4 Crores or 34 Million)

Learn more

"Case Summary - Sherchud" states as all employees but Legal Department of RICBL names only four specific employees

དེ་ལས་བརྟེན་སྐབས་སུ་འབབ་པའི་རྩོད་བཤེར་ནང་ རྩོད་རྩ་དང་ རྩོད་ཟླ་ ལས་བྱེདཔ་ཡོངས་ཀྱི་ཆེད་དམིགས་ཀྱི་ནོར་འཁྲུལ་ཤོར་བཞིན་བསམ་བཞིན་གྱི་བྱ་བ་སོགས་འབག་ཡོདཔ་ལས་ དེ་ལྟར་གྱི་འགན་འཁྲི་བསྐལ་དགོཔ་འདུག།།

(Therefore, in the current case, the plaintiff, respondent, and all officials have committed acts of intentional faults and mistakes; due to this, accountability must be fixed.)


However, RICBL translated in english to OGZ as:

Further, although no loan agreement was executed between the Corporation and the defendant, since the Corporation has sanctioned the new loan, no proper diligence was exercised,  and therefore, the plaintiff, the defendant and all employees must be held accountable for the fault. 


Since the translation by RICBL changed the whole context of the Judgement on their appeal submission to the OGZ, the case was subsequently dismissed by the OGZ.


Click the following link to know more

now who all are relevant officials?

Update, Sad news for the 4 employees!!! on October 10, 2023

The Bench II of the High Court issues clarification on who are the relevant employees of the bank.


  ...ཟེར་ འཁོད་ཡོདཔ་ལས་འབྲེལ་གཏོགས་ཡོད་མི་དངུལ་ཁང་གྱི་ལས་བྱེདཔ་ གོང་འཁོད་མི་ངོམ་བཞི་གི་མིང་ གསལ་ཏོག་ཏོ་འབད་འཁོད་ཡོདཔ་ལས་དང་པ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་ལག་འཁྱེར་ཨང་༡༠༧༡༠༠༠༢༢༢༩ ཅན་མ་ འཆང་མི་ངོམ་བཀྲིས་དཔལ་འབྱོར་དང་ གཉིས་སུ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་ ལག་འཁྱེར་ཨང་༡༠༧༡༦༠༠༢༠༥༦ ཅན་མ་འཆང་མི་ངོམ་འཇིགས་མེད་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་དང་ གསུམ་པ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་ལག་འཁྱེར་ཨང་༡༠༩༠༣༠༠༡༢༥༣ ཅན་མ་འཆང་ མི་ངོམ་ ཨྱོན་ལྷ་མོ་ དེ་བཞིན་བཞི་པ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་ལག་འཁྱེར་ཨང་༡༠༦༠༣༠༠༠༩༡༠ ཅན་མ་འཆང་མི་ངོམ་འགྱུར་མེད་ཆོས་ཚོགས་ཁོང་བཞི་གིས་ སྟེང་ཁར་ འཁྲི་བ་བཀལ་བ་ཅིན་ འཁྲུན་ཆོད་དང་འཁྲིལ་ཏེ་ནོར་འཁྲུལ་མེདཔ་ལས་ ... 


  ...the bank's relevant employees mentioned are firstly, Tashi Penjor with CID No. 10710002229; secondly, Jigme Namgyal with CID No. 10716002056; thirdly, Ugyen Lhamo with CID No. 10903001253 and fourthly, Jurme Chetsho with CID No. 10603000910. These four employees must be held accountable. Regarding this, there shall be no discrepancies which is in line with the judgement...

Read the clarification by High Court

Better yet, hear us in person!

We trust and respect the Judiciary of Bhutan, so what's this story all about? Hear our side of the story.

Thimphu, Bhutan

Copyright © 2024 - All Rights Reserved.

  • Home
  • Blog Posts
  • Loan Signatory (Mindmap)

Disclaimer

This webpage is created with the sole purpose of shedding light on the experiences of four unfortunate employees named by RICBL. 


It is not intended to undermine or challenge the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts but rather aims to explore how the institution they served for 16 years may have shifted responsibility in the context of a Loan Default Case from 40+ employees to only 4 employees.


Update: The Hon'ble High Court names four employees after the clarification issued on October 2, 2023.

This website uses cookies.

We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

DeclineAccept