Harassment of an NRI by two Indian Nationalized Banks
The following is a shocking account of how the following two Nationalised Banks, namely Vijay Bank and Indian Bank, have been delaying court proceedings by fabricating material documents and then filing the same as genuine though knowing that the same are false. These two notorious banks have not spared even their advocates who have been representing them in courts. They have given them false documents for filing knowing that the same were not genuine and rather were false and forged. This fact was revealed by one of their advocates who complained that he has not been paid his legal fee by Vijaya Bank.
Recently, Vijaya Bank made another false statement in writing to the Investigation Officer of the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police.
These two notorious nationalized banks raised huge money from public via IPOs and misled the public by making a simple disclosure about the pending criminal and civil cases against them by the complainant, Mr Mohan Shandilya. These banks are also guilty of having made false statements with mala fide intention to deliberately cause delay in court proceedings and mislead the Hon'ble Judges.
Please help by suggestings ways to arrest this criminal practice adopted by nationalized banks in whose favour special Acts are available ble but against whom there is no similar summary procedure remedy available.
Brief Note on fraud by Indian Bank on an NRI
1. That the complainant is a Non-Resident Indian from Moscow, Russia and Singapore. He was a highly successful international businessman and was honoured in the Parliament House by the Union Finance Minister of India ion 21st January 1991 for bringing to India maximum foreign exchange on non-repatriation basis.
2. That the accused persons have dishonestly caused wrongful loss of huge NRE funds to the complainant and wrongful gain of the said huge NRE funds to themselves by committing several criminal acts amounting to serious offences as stated in the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. That the complainant has thus been forced to abandon his flourishing international business to stay in India to fight for his rights and recovery of his hard-earned foreign exchange. The facts of the case are stated in brief herein below.
4. That the two companies under the management of the complainant were successfully carrying on business of manufacturing and trading in life-saving medical machines and equipments under collaboration of Fortune 500 companies. The accused persons had witnessed the turnover of these companies reaching to 40 Crores at the relevant time with non-fund based limits granted to them by the accused persons.
5. That at the end of 1989 the accused persons lured the complainant to place his huge NRE funds with the accused Bank on Re-Investment basis initially for a term of five years in the form of NRE FDs by promising sufficient fund-based limits to his companies.
6. That the complainant, thus, placed two NRE FDs bearing No. 565500 dated 1.12.1989 of Rs 5,50,00,000=00 (Rupees Five Crores Fifty Lacs exact) having maturity value of Rs 10,42,69,000=00 (Rupees Ten Crores Forty Two Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand exact) as on 1.12.1994, and the NRE FD No. 591039 dated 19.12.1989 of Rs 3,30,00,000=00 (Rupees Three Crores Thirty Lacs exact) having maturity value of Rs 6,25,68,000=00 (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Five Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand exact) as on 19.12.1994. True copies of the said NRE FDs are annexed herewith and are collectively marked as Annexure 1.
7. That the accused bank did not fulfill any promises it had made while making the complainant part with the huge NRE funds. Rather, the accused persons started raising irrelevant issues with the complainant and his companies. Further, the accused bank did not continue even the non-fund faced limits granted to the said companies although the said accounts had successfully on schedule notched a turn-over of about Rs 40 Crores in exports. There was absolutely no irregularities or adverse features in the conduct of the said accounts, which were of ‘AAA’ rating.
8. That suspecting the odd behaviour of the accused bank, the complainant started asking the accused bank to refund his NRE Funds, but the accused bank came with one excuse after another and false assurances of settling the outstanding matter.
9. Finally, the complainant was shocked to learn that the accused persons had acted dishonestly and had unauthorisedly adjusted the maturity proceeds of the said two NRE FDs instead of refunding the same to the complainant despite a letter from Reserve Bank of India dated 1997, which the accused persons dishonestly concealed from the complainant for about three years.
10. This was disclosed by the accused persons for the first time in the year 2000 when the accused bank filed an IA bearing No. 2/2000 before the Hon’ble Court in Original Application 895/96 and two others Nos 870/96 & 871/96.
11. That the said Hon’ble Court, namely Debt Recovery Tribunal – II, New Delhi, passed an order dated 7.6.2004 dismissing the said IA 2 of 2000 of the accused bank and allowing the IA 335/04 moved by the complainant wherein the Hon’ble Court held by giving a finding on fact that the accused bank had ‘unauthorisedly adjusted’ the maturity proceeds of the two NRE FDs of the complainant and further directed the accused bank to refund the sum of Rs 45 Crores within seven days of the date of the said order i.e. 7.6.04 (after keeping back a sum of Rs 15 Crores from the total maturity proceeds amount of Rs 60 Crores for the purpose of final adjudication of the claim of the accused bank against the companies of the complainant).
12. That a true copy of the said order passed by the Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure 2.
13. That the accused persons had hatched and in fact carried out a criminal conspiracy to unlawfully and dishonestly usurp the huge NRE funds of the complainant amounting to Rs 60 Crores as of 2004 by filing false civil cases in DRT for recovery from the complainant’s three companies of alleged debts which are admittedly non-existent in the eyes of law.
14. That the accused persons wanted to make good the losses caused by them alone to the public funds by their own gross negligence and non-adherence of prudent banking norms. They conspired to cheat the complainant by dishonestly misappropriating the huge NRE funds of the complainant and thus hatched a conspiracy to falsely implicate his three companies before the Hon’ble DRT.
15. That in order to support their false case, the accused persons also forged the valuable security of the complainant, namely the NRE FDs, by interpolating the words “under lien” on the face of the said two NRE FDs. Though, the law is clear and unambiguous that no lien can be created on an NRE FD for loan to a resident person with prior written permission of the RBI. It is worth mentioning here that the accused bank has not even averred that the mandatory prior written permission was obtained from RBI for the purpose of creating a lien on the said NRE FDs. A proof of the said interpolation is annexed herewith and is collectively marked as Annexure 3.
16. That the dishonest intention & conduct of the accused persons is absolutely visible from their unlawful acts and omissions from the very beginning, and is further reinforced now when the accused persons have disobeyed & defied the aforementioned order dated 7.6.04 of the Hon’ble DRT. It is most respectfully submitted that the accused persons have also filed a false affidavit before the quasi-judicial authority of the TRO-37, New Delhi stating falsely that the operation of the said order dated 7.6.04 in OA 895/96 has been stayed. The fact is that the Hon’ble Appellate Court, before whom their appeal is not even admitted being at Notice stage only, has not pass any such order of Stay. The records would be summoned with leave of this Hon’ble Court as and when directed.
17. It is most respectfully further submitted that the accused persons also made an attempt on the life of the complainant on the 1st November 2004 when he had gone to the office of the accused No. for recovery of the money together with the Income Tax Team in respect of the Notice of Demand under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A true copy of the FIR No. 683/04, registered at the PS Connaught Place under Section 307 & 34 of the IPC, 1860 for attempt to murder, is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure 4.
18. That the accused person had a dishonest intention and an evil design over the huge NRE funds of the complainant from the very beginning. The accused person acted in concert and criminal conspiracy to unlawfully usurp the said funds by unlawful and dishonest conversion of valuable security to their wrongful gain and thus cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves by unauthorisedly adjusting and misappropriating the said NRE Funds, which were got kept in trust with them by luring the complainant on the basis of false and dishonest assurances and misrepresentations made by the accused persons. The accused persons are also guilty of having indulged in forgery of valuable security namely the NRE FDs and, thus, guilty of criminal breach of trust by a banker and cheating.
19. That, thus, it is absolutely clear from the facts and circumstances of the case as described hereinabove that the accused persons are guilty of having committed various serious offences including but not limited to Section 405/409/420/467/471/477-A/506/34/120-B OF IPC, 1860.
Fraud by Vijaya Bank
1. That the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the criminal and civil complaint/case against the Vijaya Bank and its officials are set out in brief as hereunder:
i. That the Chief Manager of the defendant - Vijaya Bank’s Defence Colony Branch in New Delhi approached the plaintiffs and sought their patronage. Therefore, the plaintiffs opened an NRE account bearing No. NRE 6523 with the said defendant No. 2 on 28.3.1990 with an initial deposit of NRE funds amounting to Rs Four Crores received from abroad via State Bank of India, New Delhi.
ii. That out of the said initial deposit of Rs Four Crores, a sum of Rs Two Crores was unauthorizedly, unlawfully and dishonestly transferred by the defendant bank from the above mentioned NRE Account No. 6523 of the plaintiffs by way of first fraudulently obtaining a blank leaf of a cheque from plaintiff No. 2, in the absence of her husband - plaintiff No. 1, and then filling in unauthorized instructions on the said cheque in their own handwriting, and being officers of the Bank, they unauthorisedly, unlawfully and dishonestly transferred the huge sum of Rs Two Crores in spite of the fact that the signature on the said cheque absolutely mismatch and differ from the signature of the account holders as registered on the Specimen Signature Card pertaining to the said NRE Account No. NRE 6523. Copies of these relevant documents are annexed, and the same shall be specifically pointed out during a meeting.
iii. Thus, the defendants unauthorizedly, unlawfully and dishonestly transferred the huge sum of Rs Two Crores to the Bogus Bills Liabilities account of their sick company with the evil intention to cover up a massive financial scam running into tens of crores of rupees and which was under investigation by the CBI.
iv. It is worth mentioning here that the plaintiffs and/or any member of their family are not liable even remotely to the defendant bank for any liability of any nature.
v. That the plaintiffs having failed to get back their money from the defendants, till date even after judicial remand of the defendant bank’ Chief Manager during criminal proceedings initiated upon a complaint filed by the plaintiffs had filed a recovery suit bearing No. 1154 of 1993 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
vi. That the defendants have known from the very beginning that as per the law a cheque, carrying signature not matching with the signature of the account holder as recorded on the Specimen Signature Card of that account, cannot be honoured.
vii. Therefore, the defendants first fabricated a false Specimen Signature Card to justify the signature matching, and filed a certified true copy of the same before the criminal Court as well as this Hon’ble Court. The plaintiffs pointed out gaping holes in the said fabricated Specimen Signature Card, the defendants filed another certified true copy of the said fabricated Specimen Signature Card after duly interpolating the missing Account No. NRE 6523 at the time of seeking bail for the defendant who had been remanded to judicial custody by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence complained by the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs pointed out to the Hon’ble Sessions Judge the interpolation carried out by the defendants, the Court refused to grant bail, and the defendants then moved a bail petition before this Hon'ble Court vide Crl. Misc. Main No. 2509/95 in which the defendants submitted another copy of the said fabricated Specimen Signature Card after further interpolation of the words “Defence Colony”, which had been left out earlier because of haste – a typical conduct of a criminal. However, the defendants wrote the Account No. NRE 6523 differently from the way they had written on the earlier occasion. The defendants have filed the original of this fabricated Specimen Signature Card in the suit before this Hon’ble Court. These three versions of the fabricated documents are annexed as Annexure ‘D’ for a ready reference. A close perusal of these three copies of the fabricated Specimen Signature Cards (SS Card) allegedly pertaining to the plaintiffs Account No. NRE 6523 would clearly show that in the first SS card the areas earmarked for writing the account No. and Bank’s branch name are blank; in the second SS card the account No. NRE 6523 has been interpolated by the defendants in such a manner that the letters NRE are on the left hand side of the dividing line, while the number 6523 is on the right hand side of the dividing line; in the third SS Card the letters NR are on the left hand side of the dividing line, while the letter E and the number 6523 are on the right hand side of the dividing line. Here, the defendants have also interpolated the Bank’s branch name: Defence Colony in the top portion. It clearly establishes that had the defendants transferred the funds legally, then they need not have indulged in this fraudulent cover up operation.
viii. That the plaintiffs also moved an I.A. No. 9923 of 1997 under Order 13 Rule 10 for calling the record of the defendants, namely originals of those Specimen Signature Cards certified true copies of which the defendants had filed together with affidavits.
ix. The reason for filing of this IA was to expose the falsehood of the defendants - their sham and moonshine defence based on forged documents.
x. It is most respectfully submitted here that the defendants have till date failed in producing the original of the Specimen Signature Card a certified true copy of which they alone had filed together with an affidavit as part of their material defence on page 33 of their Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 2709/95 before this Hon'ble Court.
xi. The records of this petition are not being reproduced here for the sake of brevity, and the plaintiffs pray the same may be called for ready reference at the time of hearing and read as part of this appeal.
xii. A reading of the affidavit dated 26.3.1998 shows that as per the defendants the original specimen signature card bearing the alleged signature “R. Murti” of the plaintiff No. 2 has been filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate in a criminal complaint filed by the appellant against the defendant. Now it is worth paying attention to the filing of original documents dated 11.1.1996 filed by the defendants in the present suit No. 1154/93 where the said specimen signature card is filed by the defendants at page No. 3. Yet, again on 18.1.1999 the defendants filed another contradictory affidavit saying that the said speciment signature card has been filed in the present suit no. 1154/93 and even admission/denial has also been carried out. A close look of this suggested SS Card is required to gain a clinching proof of the fraud perpetrated by the defendants, namely that this SS card is absolutely materially different (in as much as the letters ‘NR’ and ‘E’ had been interpolated on different sides of the dividing line in the relevant portion and also the name of the bank’s branch “Defence Colony” had been added on one while was missing on the other) from the copy of the SS Card which the defendants had filed on page 33 in the Crl. Misc. (Main) 2709/95 and were under legal obligation as per the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 9.1.1998 to produce before this Hon’ble Court, but submitted a false affidavit to dishonestly cover up their failure to fulfill their legal obligation, and thus misled this Hon’ble Court, for which they are liable to be prosecuted most severely as per applicable law. The said affidavits are annexed as Annexure “E”.
xiii. That the defendants also failed to produce the original of the Specimen Signature Card, a certified true copy of which they had filed in the present suit on page 3 of the List of Photocopies of Documents filed on behalf of the defendants dated 1.2.1994. The defendants finally filed an original Specimen Signature Card bearing page No. 3 as part of the List of Original Documents filed on behalf of the defendants dated 11.1.1996 in the present suit before this Hon'ble Court. These two documents filed by the defendants alone materially differ from each other, though the defendants have filed them as one and the same Specimen Signature Card pertaining to the account No. NRE 6523.
xiv. That the defendant bank has indulged in the most reprehensible conduct of the defendants.
xv. That the defendant bank has made clear, unequivocal and unconditional admission through its officer on solemn affirmation dated 13.7.1993 in a Court of law before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in collateral proceedings bearing No. Crl. Complaint No. 43/92 filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The records of these criminal proceedings are not being reproduced here for the sake of brevity since the same are available with the records of the present suit before this Hon'ble Court, and the same may kindly be called for ready reference at the time of a meeting. The said statement on solemn affirmation made by the defendants before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 13.7.19993 is annexed as Annexure ‘F’.
xvi. That the said statement of the defendants on solemn affirmation made before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate clearly amounts to an unequivocal, unconditional and voluntary admission that the transfer of the said huge amount of Rs Two crores was unauthorized and unlawful. As per the said statement the signature of the account holder (plaintiff No. 2 herein) were “R. Shandilya” as registered on her Specimen Signature Card pertaining to the said Account No. NRE 6523; while the signature on the cheque leaf, which the defendants had fraudulently obtained from the plaintiff No. 2 and had used for effecting the unauthorized and illegal transfer of the huge NRE funds of Rs two crores from the plaintiffs’ NRE Account No. NRE 6523, were “R. Murti”.
xvii. Therefore, for the reason of this mismatch of the said signatures the said cheque could not have been honoured, but for the dishonest mala fide intention of the defendants to unauthorizedly and illegally transfer the NRE funds of the plaintiffs.
xviii. That, further, there is the minutes of the joint meeting dated 18.2.1991 held at the Head Office of the defendant bank as an admission by the defendants. It is most respectfully submitted every admission is nothing but a record of a statement, an offer or an acceptance of an offer. No admission can be brought to the notice of a Court unless the same is recorded in one or the other manner – oral or written.
xix. In fact, it is most respectfully submitted that from the date of the said statement on solemn affirmation is 13.7.1993 i.e. almost two and a half years after the defendants at their own Head Office made the above admission in the joint meeting dated 18.2.1991.
xx. It cannot lie in the mouth of the defendants to deny that admission.
xxi. That, further also, there is the statement by the Reserve Bank of India vide their letter dated 22.8.1998 filed by the plaintiffs specifically.
xxii. As per this letter of the Reserve bank of India a cheque bearing signature mismatching from the signature of the account holder as registered on his Specimen Signature card pertaining to the account to which the cheque in question belongs cannot be honoured.
xxiii. Further, there cannot be more than one Specimen Signature card of an Account holder in a given account. Contrary to this law, the defendants case is that the plaintiff No. 2 had two SS cards.
xxiv. The reason behind this unsustainable contention of the defendants is that the defendants had fabricated a SS Card carrying the signature “R. Murti”. It is most respectfully submitted that the defendant bank being a nationalized bank has to conduct its business in strict conformity with the rules and regulations brought in force from time to time by the Reserve Bank of India. A law/rule by the Reserve Bank of India is binding on the defendant bank proprio vigore. A copy of this RBI letter, which indisputably amounts an unequivocal, clear and voluntary admission that the said transfer of huge NRE funds was unauthorized and illegal, is annexed as Annexure ‘G’.
xxv. That the said letter of the RBI, the final controlling State Authority of the defendant bank, and for which reason alone all acts of the defendant bank in disregard of whose rules and regulations are null and void, is very important in resolution of the artificial dispute, and consequently, release of the plaintiffs’ money.