Bank of baroda

pari passu
charges, as agreed, with
respect to the initial disbursements made by the Bank. The suit is pending for framing of issues.
3.
Special civil applications were filed by 22 co-operative societies/ banks in 1998 before the High Court, Ahmedabad.
The petitions were filed by registered cooperative societies or registered co-operative banks for directing the Bank
to refund, with interest, the deposits amounting to Rs. 227,342,815 that the applicants had invested with various
branches of the Bank at Surat. It is contended that when the petitioners made inquiries about their annual statement
of accounts, they came to know that serious mischief had taken place in as much the amounts invested by them
with the Bank had been misappropriated or substantially misappropriated by fraudulent withdrawals in the form of

---

303
loans or advance against those fixed deposit receipts without any authorization of the petitioner banks/societies. By
common order dated May 2, 2000 the Single Judge constituted a Committee with the Deputy Governor of RBI or
his nominee as chairman. The Committee was mandated to give its findings with regard to the amount due and
payable to the concerned petitioners. The said order made the findings of the Committee binding on both the sides.
The Bank preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, Ahmedabad. The Committee, vide its
report dated March 20, 2001 made a recommendation that the Bank should refund the disputed amounts of
deposits to the petitioner. By order dated October 1, 2003, the Division Bench, High Court, Ahmedabad directed the
Bank to act in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Committee report and to pay the parties the
disputed amounts as set out in the report. The Bank has preferred an appeal against the said order before the
Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition (SLP (Civil) No.22791-22822 of 2003). The Supreme Court by its
order dated December 10, 2004 has stayed the impugned order dated October 1, 2003.
4.
M/s Neptune Aqua Farms & Exports Limited has filed a suit (O.S.No. 335 of 2004) in June, 2001 before the District
Judge, Visakhapatnam against the Bank claiming Rs. 30 million as damages for losses suffered due to non-
disbursement of sanctioned working capital limits. The plaintiff was sanctioned term loan of Rs. 22 million and
working capital of Rs. 18 million. The plaintiff has submitted that the Bank failed to release the sanctioned working
capital without any tenable reason or justification, thereby committing breach of contract and causing huge losses
to the plaintiff. The Bank, in its written statement, has contended that one of the conditions of the sanction of
financial assistance was personal guarantee by one director of the plaintiff, Mr. B. V. Prasad, which was not
produced. This suit is pending for trial. The Bank had already filed an application (O.A.No. 648 of 1998) before the
DRT, Bangalore against the plaintiff for recovery of the term loan and the same is pending.
5.
Arjun Gajria has filed a suit (O.S.No. 367 of 1996) on March 4, 1996 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad against
the Bank, M/s. International Graphics Private Limited (IGPL) and the proprietor of IGPL claiming Rs. 16.05 million
from the defendants. The plaintiff had agreed to finance the purchase of computers by one Classic Computer
Systems (CCS) from IGPL. The plaintiff had transferred an amount to the Bank to be used as lien for IGPL against
the supply of computer systems to CCS. The plaintiff has submitted that the Bank has wrongfully misappropriated
the sum of Rs. 9.62 million given to it as lien against any default by CCS. The plaintiff has since passed away and
his legal representatives have been substituted as plaintiffs in the suit. The Bank, in its written statement, has
denied the allegation of misappropriation and has submitted that the Bank was entitled to enforce the lien as the
required payments had not been made. This suit is pending.
6.
The Bank had filed Special Civil Suit No. 51 of 1989 on March 27, 1989 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bharuch
against Alliance Synthetics Private Limited (“Alliance”) for recovery of Rs. 3.47 million. In the said suit, certain
goods belonging to Alliance, the value of which was assessed by the court commissioner to be Rs. 3.8 million,
were attached. The attached goods were subsequently stolen. Alliance filed Special Civil Suit No. 91 of 1996 on
May 3, 1996 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bharuch against the Bank for recovery of the Rs. 10.81 million, the
alleged actual value of the attached goods. Alliance has submitted that the goods or stocks of the plaintiff were
stolen or removed while in the custody of the Bank and therefore the Bank is liable for the loss of the attached
properties. The aforementioned suit filed by the Bank has since been transferred to the DRT, Ahmedabad. Alliance
filed an application in Special Civil Suit No. 91 of 1996 for the transfer of the said suit to the DRT, Ahmedabad,
which application was rejected by order dated February 28, 2001 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bharuch. Alliance
preferred a revision application against this order (Civil Revision Application No. 413 of 2001) before the High
Court, Gujarat. The High Court, by way of its order dated December 19, 2002, has directed that the claim made by
Alliance be also heard with the Bank’s suit in DRT, Ahmedabad. Both suits are pending before the DRT, Ahmedabad
as of date.
7.
Gujarat Narmada Knitwear Limited (“GNKL”) has filed a summary suit (Special Summary Suit No. 52 of 2000)
before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Baroda against Jaykay Group Limited (“Jaykay”), Vasant Purshottam Karia, the
Bank and the London Main Office of the Bank claiming Rs. 14,776,173.80. Four consignments of goods were
dispatched from Baroda by GNKL to Jaykay in London. The London Main Office of the Bank received four bills
aggregating U.S.$ 199,290.80 for collection from the Sayajigunj Branch of the Bank, Vadodara drawn by GNKL on
Jaykay which bills remained unpaid on their respective due dates. In the said Summary Suit No. 52 of 2000 the
Bank has filed an application for dismissal of the suit coupled with leave to defend the summary suit. The Bank has
contended inter alia that the suit is time barred, the court has no jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in UK and
that as it acts as an agent in the collection of billes, its liability as agent is limited. The suit is still pending.
8.
Harkishandas Keshavlal Kothari, a director of Ajanta Rubbers Private Limited (in liquidation), and others have filed

---

304