Bank of baroda

BANK OF BARODA
the City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the Bank and its Directors for reimbursement of Rs. 24,466,000. The plaintiff
had an account with the London Main Branch of the Bank and the said sums were transferred upon instructions
received from his brother. The plaintiff has alleged that the Bank was not authorized to act upon instructions of his
brother. The Bank in its written statement has submitted that the plaintiff’s brother was mandated by the plaintiff
himself to operate the account. The suit is pending.
18.
M/s Satima Cold Storage, a borrower of one of the Calcutta branches of the Bank had filed seven suits between
1995-2001 before the Civil Judge, Burdwan against the Bank, claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 2,345.6 million
alleging that the non-sanction and non-disbursal of cash credit by the Bank, in violation of the terms of the consent
decree passed in Title Suit No. 14 of 1990, resulted in huge losses to its business. In one of the said cases a
decree for Rs. 271,869,090 had been passed against the Bank and the Bank has filed an appeal against the said
decree before the High Court, Calcutta. In the said appeal an interim order was passed, with the consent of the
parties, staying the execution of the impugned decree. The said appeal is pending. Further, the Bank had also filed
recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata in 1995 in relation to the dues owed by M/s
Satima Cold Storage amounting to Rs. 80,000,000. The parties reached an out of court compromise wherein M/s
Satima Cold Storage has agreed to pay back its dues in instalments and keep the suits filed and the decree
obtained by it in relation to the claims for damages in abeyance till such dues are cleared. The said compromise
has been filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the recovery proceedings have been adjourned 
sine die
.
Joint petitions were filed by the parties in the 6 pending suits praying for adjournment of the cases 
sine die
in terms
of the compromise settlement. The Civil Judge has rejected the same on technical grounds. The matter is still
pending and no final orders have been passed yet.
19.
A suit was filed on October 3, 2000 before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay by the owners of the premises,
where the Churchgate branch of the Bank is situated, praying for the eviction of the Bank from the said premises
and mesne profits in the light of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation notice regarding increase in rateable value of
certain properties. The Court passed an eviction order on June 15, 2004 and directed the Bank to pay Rs. 30.7
million to the landlord as mesne profits. The Bank has preferred an appeal before the Court of Small Causes
(Appeal No. 623 of 2004), which appeal is pending as of date.
20.
The Bank and the State Bank of India had filed a joint application dated December 30, 2002 before the DRT,
Guwahati, against Ms/ Langlai Tea & Industries Limited and its Directors for recovery of an amount of Rs.
103,777,776.75, out of which the Bank’s claim is for recovery of Rs. 49,537,660.4. The respondent and Jai Prakash
Goel had filed a counterclaim against the banks for an amount of Rs.172,299,000 as damages on account of loss
due to alleged wilful negligence on the part of the banks in discharging their obligations. By an order dated
October 4, 2004 the application filed by the banks was dismissed and the counterclaim was partly allowed for Rs.
12,242,000 with costs. The banks have appealed against the said order before the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Kolkata, which appeal is pending as on date. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has stayed the said
order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, till the disposal of the appeal.
21.
Langlai Tea & Industries Limited (Langlai) has filed a suit (Title Suit No. 323 of 2004) for decalaration and
injunction before the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Guwahati in August, 2004 against the Bank and the State Bank of India
to quash the notices dated August 1, 2003 and June 4, 2004, issued by State Bank of India and the Bank
respectively, under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, threatening to take over the possession of the secured assets charged by Langlai to the
banks and to take other steps to recover the balances due. In the said suit, valued at Rs. 114,906,516.75 for
jurisdiction purposes, the plaintiff has also filed a petition (Misc. (J) Case No. 79 of 2004) for ad-interim temporary
injunction restraining the banks from taking further action pursuant to the abovementioned notices. Langlai had filed
another suit (Title Suit No. 267 of 2002) before the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Guwahati on October 11, 2002 against the
Bank and the State Bank of India praying for relief in the nature of disbursement of the entire loan amount and
working capital requirement of the plaintiff and for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from
taking any punitive and coercive action against the plaintiff by way of recovery proceeding. In the said suit the Civil
Judge passed an interim order dated December 24, 2002 issuing temporary injunction restraining the defendants
from taking any punitive and coercive action for recovery from the plaintiff. The cases are still pending.
22.
Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited has filed a suit (O.S. No. 592 of 2001) before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad
in December, 2001 against the State Bank of India, the Bank, Agromin Trading Limited and Gazebo Industries
Limited. The plaintiff Pepscio had entered into an agreement with Agromin Trading whereby the plaintiff paid an

---

307
amount of Rs. 48,651,000 to Agromin Trading towards the latter procuring 5,503.21 metric tones (MT) of rice from
the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and other millers for the plaintiff. Agromin procured the said quantity of rice from
the FCI and another 60 MT of rice from millers. This aggregate amount of 5,563.23 MT of rice was hypothecated by
Agromin Trading in favour of the plaintiff and whilst 2,350.53 MT of rice was kept at a godown in Kakinada, Andhra
Pradesh and the rest was kept at a godown at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. The rice stored at the Kakinada godown was
released by the plaintiff in favour of Agromin Trading upon Agromin Trading hypothecating another quantity of
2,281.62 MT of rice that was lying with one Shakti Clearing Agency Private Limited at Kakinada. Upon Agromin
Trading representing to the plaintiff that it was a beneficiary under a letter of credit (LC) issued by the Bank in
favour of Gazebo Industries and that it would get assigned an amount of Rs. 16.90 million receivable on account
of discounting the said LC to the plaintiff, the plaintiff released the 2,281.62 MT of rice that was lying with Shakti
Clearing Agency to Agromin Trading. Towards this end, Agromin directed the State Bank of India with whom it
maintained a current account to mark a lien on the proceeds of the LC and to remit therefrom the said amount of
Rs. 16.90 million to the account of the plaintiff to which the State Bank of India indicated its consent and allegedly
made an amendment to the said LC. However, the LC was forwarded by SBI to the Bank for collection without
discounting the same and consequently the said amount of Rs. 16.90 million was not remitted to the plaintiff. The
Bank rejected the LC and returned it to the SBI as it found certain discrepancies in the LC who in turn returned the
same to Agromin. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed this suit alleging the breach of Uniforms Customs and Practice for
Documentary Credits by SBI and the Bank and contended that both the SBI as well as the Bank have acted
negligently and in violation of accepted banking practices. Accordingly, it contended that Agromin, SBI and the
Bank are jointly and severally liable to make good the loss suffered by it. It has prayed that the court order the
defendants to pay, either severally or jointly, an amount of Rs. 24,505,000 with interest at the rate of 18%. The
Bank has in its written statement, inter alia, contended that the said suit is not maintainable against the Bank as
there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Bank. The plaintiff filed an interim application (I.A. No.
2480 of 2001) before the City Civil Court at Hyderabad seeking the issuance of a mandatory injunction against
Agromin, SBI and the Bank to jointly and severally deposit the sum of Rs. 24,505,000 together with interest being
the total amount claimed in the suit which application is still pending before the court.
23.
LMJ International Limited (LMJ) has filed a suit (C.S.No. 307 of 2000) in August 2000 before the High Court,
Kolkata against National Supply Corporation (NASCO), which is incorporated in Libya, Arab Bank for Investment
and Foreign Trade (ARBIFT), which is incorporated in United Arab Emirates, the Bank and the National Commercial
Bank, Tripoli, which is incorporated in Libya, seeking orders of injunction against all aforementioned defendants
restraining them from demanding or making any payment under any bank guarantee or counter guarantee furnished
on behalf of the plaintiff in connection with a contract for sale of rice by LMJ to NASCO. The plaintiff has submitted
that it has duly sold, supplied and delivered to NASCO rice and chicken peas of required specifications. At the
request of the plaintiff the Bank had furnished two bank guarantees, for total amount of Rs. 16,916,975 in favour of
ARBIFT which in turn furnished a guarantee in favour of National Commercial Bank, being the bankers of NASCO.
In April 1999, the plaintiff supplied rice and chicken peas of required specifications to NASCO. Though substantial
time had elapsed after the due receipt of goods, NASCO and its bankers failed and neglected to discharge the
guarantees. Having come to know that Libyan companies had resorted to arbitrarily invoking bank guarantees or
similar instruments in an attempt to bolster the economy, ailing under severe trade sanctions and financial restrictions
imposed by the United States of America and its allies, the above suit was instituted on the apprehension that the
bank guarantees in the relevant transaction would be invoked. An interlocutory application was moved by the
plaintiff in the above suit and, by order dated August 14, 2000, the High Court restrained the Bank from making any
payments on the basis of the bank guarantees till further orders. The above order was subsequently continued by
order dated August 28, 2000 and ultimately, by order dated May 15, 2001 the interlocutory application was disposed
off restraining the Bank from making payment on the basis of the bank guarantees and restraining NASCO from
claiming any payment through ARBIFT on the basis of bank guarantees from the Bank. In or about February –
March, 2003 ARBIFT moved an application in the above suit to vacate the interim order of injunction, which
application is pending. ARBIFT had filed a suit (Suit No. 703 of 2000) on before the Abu Dhabi Federal Court of
First Instance against the Bank in respect of non-payment of invoked bank guarantees issued by the Bank on
behalf of LMJ and others. The Federal Court of First Instance, by judgment dated January 31, 2005, has decreed
the suit ordering the Bank to pay ARBIFT Swiss Francs 1,023,863.18 or equivalent in Arab Emirate Dinars, along
with interest. The Bank has preferred an appeal (Appeal No. 119 of 2005 in February 2005) on February 27, 2005
before Federal Court of Appeal, Abu Dhabi against the said judgment and the same is pending as of date. In the
meantime, a settlement agreement dated April 28, 2005 has been entered into between LMJ and NASCO whereby
the parties have agreed to withdraw or freeze all court cases against each other. The matter is still pending.

---

308