Bank of baroda

BANK OF BARODA
24.
The Special Organising Committee of the IX
th
Asian Games, 1982 has filed a contempt petition (C.C.P.No. 23 of
1994) in January, 1994 before the High Court, New Delhi against the CMD of the Bank, Chief Manager of the
Nariman Point Branch of the Bank and CMD of Usha International, praying that the respondents be punished
according to the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. By orders dated November 2, 1982 and February 4, 1983 of
the High Court, New Delhi, in Suit No. 1475-A of 1982, the amounts lying in account no. 1401 with the Nariman
Point Branch of the Bank were attached. The petitioner has submitted that the Bank, in spite of being aware of the
orders mentioned above, has disposed of the attached amounts in Execution Case No. 10 of 1988 filed by Usha
International against the holder of the account and that the officers of the Bank and Usha International have
connived together and have committed contempt of the Court. The CMD of the Bank, in reply, has stated that there
was no effective service of the order dated November 2, 1982 and that only after the service of the show cause
notice in the contempt petition, were the Bank aware of the order dated February 4, 1983. Therefore, he has
submitted that, there was no disobedience of the orders of the Court and hence no contempt. The matter is pending
and the next date of hearing is November 21, 2005.
25.
Arvindbhai Dwarakadas Jani, a shareholder of the Bank, has filed a suit (Suit No. 832 of 2005) on October 1, 2005
before the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Vadodara against the Bank praying that the Chairman of the Bank be held
responsible for alleged loss suffered by the Bank to the extent of Rs. 5,000,000,000 on account of wrongful
spending of the money for changing the logo of the Bank and praying that the Bank be injuncted from using the
new logo, signboards prepared by the bank and from making payments to Rahul Dravid. The Plaintiff has also
prayed for an injunction that Rahul Dravid do not work as Brand Ambassador and A.K. Khandelwal do not work as
Chairman of the Bank. In the said suit the plaintiff has also made an application for an interim order of injunction
as prayed above. The plaintiff has contended that the administrators of the Bank has wrongly spent the money on
changing the logo and appointing Rahul Dravid as Brand Ambassador and has thus caused loss to the shareholders
of the Bank. The bank has filed its written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff. The suit is pending.
26.
Gujarat Telephones Cables Limited has filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 899 of 2005) on July 25, 2005 before the City
Civil Court, Ahmedabad against a consortium of banks, of which the Bank is a member, and Asset Reconstruction
Company (India) Limited, praying for a decree of Rs. 10,026,900,000 jointly and severally against the members of
the consortium. Our Bank’s share is 16% of the suit amount i.e., Rs. 1,604.30 million. The plaintiff has also made
an application for interim injunctions directing the defendants to release additional securities mentioned in the
schedule annexed to the application and to return the shares/documents in connection therewith to the plaintiff,
directing the defendants to release and discharge the promoters’ guarantee/surety and to return the documents in
connection therewith to the plaintiff and directing the defendants to remove the plaintiff from the list of willful
defaulters. The consortium had extended working capital facilities to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that the
defendant banks failed and neglected to adhere to their promises/commitments and assurance to restructure/realign
the liabilities and to grant additional finance and also to open bank guarantee or to provide other securities to the
plaintiff, because of which the plaintiff could not submit tenders and procure business and hence incurred huge
business losses.