Bank of baroda

BANK OF BARODA
a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 3980 of 1992 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on August 11, 1992 against the
Bank and others for recovery of a total amount of Rs. 117.68 million from the defendants. The plaintiffs have
submitted that the Bank, sanctioned a lower credit limit than what was promised to the plaintiffs, thereby leading to
the closure of business of Ajanta Rubbers Private Limited. Therefore the plaintiffs have claimed Rs. 35.52 million as
damages from the Bank. The Bank in its written statement has denied the above allegations and has submitted that
the plaintiff is only attempting to delay the disposal of the suit filed by the Bank before the Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.),
Bharuch (Civil Suit No. 28 of 1984) against Ajanta Rubbers Private Limited. Harkishandas Keshavlal Kothari and
others for recovery of Rs. 1.64 million. The Bank has also filed an application for dismissal of Civil Suit No. 3980
of 1992 on the ground that the plaintiffs have been declared insolvent by the order dated July 17, 2000 of the High
Court of Mumbai in Insolvency Petition No. 55 of 1996.
9.
The Bank had filed an application (O.A.No. 194 of 2000, revised as O.A. No. 825 of 2001) before the DRT, Chennai
on February 21, 2000, against Manrish Textile Corporation, Mars Overseas Textiles and others for recovery of dues
of Rs. 7,763,992 in respect of credit facilities granted to Manrish Textiles Corporation and dues of Rs. 30,104,549
in respect of credit facilities granted to Mars Overseas Textiles, secured by equitable mortgage by the other
defendants. This application has now been transferred to DRT, Coimbatore and numbered as O.A.No. 571 of 2002.
The defendants have filed a joint reply statement contending, among other things, that the Bank on many occasions
denied working capital to the defendants, thus creating unnecessary dues and consequent heavy losses to the
defendants and that their signatures were obtained on blank forms and that they did not create the equitable
mortgages. Mars Overseas Textiles has also filed a counterclaim (I.A.No 3318 of 2000) on October 24, 2000 in the
said application for Rs. 55,939,000 alleging non-payment of fixed deposit, improper maintenance by the Bank of
Export Earner’s Foreign Currency (EEFC) account, under valuation of stocks by the Bank and loss due to improper
non-extension of packing credit. The Bank filed an application in October, 2004 under section 19(11) Recovery of
Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, submitting that the counterclaim (I.A. No 3318 of 2000)
ought not to be taken for disposal as a counterclaim and should be treated and disposed off as an independent
action, against which application the defendants have filed objections. Manrish Textile Corporation and some other
defendants have also filed a counterclaim (I.A.No. 358 of 2004) dated October 27, 2004 for Rs. 3,069,122.15 on
account of alleged non-repayment of fixed deposits and EEFC account. Manrish Textile Corporation and others
have also filed an application for set off under section 19(6) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 on November 3, 2004 alleging that the Bank has caused them loss due to various acts of
deficiency of service and acts of omissions and commissions and have prayed that the sum of Rs. 19,802,206.58
should be set off against the claim of the Bank. The case is still pending.
10.
The Bank filed an application (O.A.No. 201 of 1998) before the DRT, Jaipur on March 17, 1997, which was
transferred to the DRT, Chandigarh and numbered as O.A.No. 511 of 2000, against Teg’s Masrado Ltd. (Masrado)
and others for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 84,257,538 in relation to certain term loan and guarantee facilities
offered by the Bank. The application was decreed ex parte by judgment dated December 24, 2001 and recovery
certificate was issued by DRT, Chandigarh. On an application by the defendants the DRT, Chandigarh, by order
dated June 12, 2002, set aside the judgment and recovery certificate dated December 24, 2001 and the defendants
were directed to file written statement within four weeks. Masrado has filed a counterclaim dated July 10, 2002
against the Bank for Rs. 292,725,000 on account of alleged damages and losses suffered by Masrado due to the
negligence of the Bank. The defendants also filed a miscellaneous application (M.A.No./Dy.No.6368/2004) in O.A.No.
511 of 2000 for deciding the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue, alleging that O.A.No. 511 of 2000 is barred
by limitation. By order dated January 13, 2005 the DRT, Chandigarh dismissed the aforesaid application for
recovery as barred by limitation, except to the extent that the said application related to the recovery of Rs.
38,750,236 claimed as interest on the bank guarantee invoked. The Bank has filed an appeal against the said
order in the DRAT, New Delhi praying for quashing the impugned order and issuance of recovery certificate for the
amount of Rs. 23,359,138 against the defendants. The appeal and the original application are pending.
11.
Shri Parshwanath Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit has filed a suit (Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 2003) before
the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Karad on March 24, 2003 against the Bank and one Girish Lalchand Shah, former senior
branch manager of the Sangli Branch of the Bank. The plaintiff had made short term deposits amounting to Rs.
8,551,627 with the Sangli Branch of the Bank. The plaintiff has submitted that Girish Lalchand Shah and some
other offices of the Bank in collusion with the Bank had opened a fictitious and bogus loan account in the name of
the plaintiff society in the books of account of the Sangli Branch, without the knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
has denied taking loan of Rs. 4,350,000 from the Bank and has stated that because of the fraudulent and fabricated
documents created by the defendants in relation to the said loan, the plaintiff was slapped with a fictitious liability

---

305
of Rs. 4,242,080 by the Income Tax Department. The plaintiff has prayed for an order declaring that the plaintiff
society had never obtained a loan of Rs. 4,350,000 from the Bank and directing the defendants to jointly and
severally pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10,025,080 comprising the aforementioned liability and damages. The
Bank in its written statement has raised preliminary objections with respect to territorial jurisdiction of the court,
limitation and non-joinder of parties and has denied the allegations mentioned above. The case is pending.
12.
The Bank had filed a suit (Special Civil Suit No. 476 of 1997) on July 1, 1997 before the Civil Court, Kolhapur
against M/s. Arihant Spinning Mills Limited (Arihant) and others claiming approximately Rs. 10,300,000 from Arihant
with respect to dues on cash credit facilities extended to Arihant by the Bank. The said suit was transferred to DRT,
Pune and numbered as O.A.No. 581-P of 2001. In the said application before the DRT, Arihant has filed a
counterclaim dated August 20, 2002 claiming Rs. 139,336,000 from the Bank, MSFC and SICOM for alleged losses
and damages on account of non-observance of RBI instructions, prescription of faulty repayment schedule, and
selling Arihant’s unit at a throwaway price. The Bank, in its written statement to the counterclaim, has denied the
abovementioned allegations and has submitted that the counterclaim is time barred. The case is still pending.
13.
M/s Albert Granite Private Limited (Albert) has filed a suit (Special Civil Suit No. 87 of 1996) on February 1, 1996
before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kolhapur against the Bank claiming Rs. 55,300,000 on account of losses or
damages caused. Albert has contended that the Bank failed and neglected to disburse all credit facilities sanctioned
by the Bank and to give promised and contracted performance in accordance with the said sanction. It has also
been submitted that the Bank settled Albert’s accounts with State Industrial and Investment Corporation of
Maharashtra Limited, paying much more than what Albert was liable to pay. The Bank has denied the allegations
mentioned above. The Bank also filed a suit (Special Civil Suit No. 766 of 1996) on November 8, 1996 before the
Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kolhapur, which was transferred to DRT, Pune and numbered as O.A.No, 245-P of 2001 for
recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 27,443,752.53 from Albert. Special Civil Suit No. 87 of 1996 has been transferred
to DRT, Pune and numbered as O.A. No. 81 of 2003. By an order dated February 27, 2003 of the High Court,
Mumbai in Company Petition No. 878 of 2002, filed by one Nutan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Albert was ordered
to be wound up. The matter is still pending .
14.
Late Devichand Lodha, Ashok Kumar Lodha and their proprietary concerns had filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 5613 of
1999) on October 10, 1999 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad claiming Rs. 13,122,568 from the Bank on
account of alleged losses due to non-disbursement of promised financial assistance. The suit was transferred to the
DRT, Ahmedabad where the applications No. 73, 74 and 75 of 1999 by the Bank against members of Lodha family
and their proprietary concerns were pending. Ashok Lodha, by letter dated November 29, 2004, submitted a
compromise proposal of one time settlement for Rs. 5,600,000. The Bank sanctioned the proposal and, by letter
dated April 9, 2005, informed Ashok Lodha that it has agreed to accept Rs. 56,68,000 towards full and final
settlement of the Bank’s dues. In pursuance of the compromise, Rs. 1.4 million has been received by the Bank but
the consent terms have not been filed in the DRT, Ahmedabad as of date.
15.
M/s. Polytex Synthetics, a partnership firm, filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 5815 of 2001) on January 10, 2002 before City
Civil Court, Ahmedabad against the Bank claiming Rs. 80,000,000 on account of certain lapses on the part of the
Bank. Bank had earlier filed an application (O.A.No. 10 of 1997) on January 9, 1997 before the DRT, Ahmedabad
against M/s. Polytex Synthetics and others for recovery of their dues amounting to Rs. 4,422,993. In the aforementioned
suit filed against the Bank, it has filed a Purshis to frame and decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction on the
ground that City Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the same ought to have been filed
as a counterclaim before the DRT. The Bank is yet to file its written statement in Civil Suit No. 5815 of 2001.
16.
The Bank filed an application (O.A.No. 26 of 2001) on January 25, 2001 before the DRT, Kolkata against JRK
International Private Limited (JRK) and others for recovery of Rs. 70,427,137.33 on account of dues on various
credit facilities extended by the Bank to JRK and a performance guarantee issued on behalf of JRK. JRK filed a
counterclaim on July 7, 2003 claiming Rs. 178,790,765 as damages on the grounds that the Bank illegally made
payment against the performance guarantee and that the Bank neglected and failed to protect and sell goods given
as security. By judgment and order dated December 1, 2003, DRT, Kolkata dismissed the counterclaim of JRK and
allowed the Bank to recover only Rs. 33,084,376 i.e. the sale proceeds of the primary security property. JRK filed
an appeal against the said order (Appeal No. 33 of 2004) on May 18, 2004 before the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Kolkata and same is pending. The Bank has also filed an appeal (Appeal No. 4 of 2004) before the same
forum and the same is also pending.
17.
Heman Kumar Taurani, residing in Hyderabad, has filed a suit (O.S.No. 51 of 2002) on February 18, 2002 before

---

306