email on 5-5-2005 to Oriental Bank of Commerce

ERSTWHILE GLOBAL TRUST BANK ON CG ROAD -AHMEDABAD GIVING FRAUDULENTLY LOAN OF RS 12.5 CRORES TO CORE HEATLH CARE BY CREATING CHARGE ON IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR PARIMAL CROSSING -AHMEDABAD

pankaj mody
Thu, May 5, 2005 at 4:28 PM
Reply-To: pankaj mody
To: rh_ahm@obc.co.in, edp_ahm@obc.co.in, helpahmedabad@rbi.org.in, rbbarman@rbi.org.in, cmd@obc.co.in, akmishra@obc.co.in, dbsahmedabad@rbi.org.in
Cc: hcguj@guj.nic.in, cvc@alpha.nic.in, pshome@gujarat.gov.in, suchetadalal@yahoo.com, manubhai_cerc@hotmail.com, sg@expressindia.com
Bcc: vichardhara@gmail.com, aibea@vsnl.com, aibeahq@gmail.com

TOP PRIORITY

FROM :
PANKAJ S MODY
2ND FLOOR , JANMANGAL APT
40 BMM SOCIETY , PALDI
AHMEDABAD 380 006
EMAIL: modyps@gmail.com

5th May 2005
The Regional Head
1)
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
CHANAKAYA, 4TH FLOOR,NEAR DINESH HALL
OFF ASHRAM ROAD
AHMEDABAD
PHONE 26587539,26585830, FAX 26589456
EMAIL: rh_ahm@obc.co.in, edp_ahm@obc.co.in


2) ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
G-2 SAMEDH, NEAR ASSOCIATED PETROL PUMP
CG ROAD, AHMEDABAD
FAX 91-79-26405597,
PHONE:- 26405595,

SIR,

SUBJECT : GTB BRANCH on CG Road in Ahmedabad extending of term loan of Rs 12.5 crores to Core health care by creating charge on immoveable property under signature of Jatin jalundhwala.

This is in continuation to my email dated 27-12-2004 and the reply dated 16-2-2005 of EGTB –CG Road branch in Ahmedabad given to the undersigned after affixing possession notice dated 31-1-2005 on the immoveable property. Their excuses show the guilty conscience.

From your reply it is clear that the management of OBC is behaving like ostrich sinking its head in the sand so as to turn a blind eye so as to grab illegally the possession of the property by encroaching and trespassing the immoveable property. Your excuse that the matter is sub-judice is to veil illegal acts of grabbing the property.

It is obligatory on the part of management of OBC to maintain clean , ethical transparent and honest approach and I therefore look forward to your detailed reply by email latest by 8th May 2005 to me as well as to the Honourable Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court (reference email hcguj@guj.nic.in ) especially when GTB has not attended the court proceedings in Gujarat High Court pertaining to the Appeal from order 176/2003. I need to have detailed reply to the various points referred in the enclosure from the management of OBC latest by 8th May 2005 to the various points referred in the

Your failure to do so would construe that you lack conviction about legality of the charge on the immoveable property referred in suit 5827/2001and the management of OBC wants to openly and shamelessly shield Sushil Handa as well as the management of GTB and OBC would be considered as a crook banker for concealing and suppressing vital facts and the bank cannot be trusted to follow standard of ethics.

The present email is a public exposure so that the depositors and the public at large can judge ethical standards on part of OBC . I am giving wide awareness so that depositors can decide whether OBC is also taking route of GTB . Let every one see whether OBC openly blows a whistle or not to expose the scamsters such as Sushil Handa and Ramesh Gelli as well as other colluders promptly or not. This would test the bank's authenticity , conviction, honesty, sincerity and openness.

You shall immediately send a copy of the present email to EGTB branch on CG Road in Ahmedabad by fax as well as the other connected officials in OBC for immediate action as well as report findings to the Honorable Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court .

I reserve my right to draw attention of other additional points. A copy has been marked to Gujarat High Court for drawing the attention of judiciary on account of indifference and lack of transparency from your side.

Kindly acknowledge receipt of my email.

Yours sincerely,

Pankaj S Mody.


ENCLOSURE A

1. At the time of appraisal , GTB officers would have carried out minute verification as part of due diligence exercise as to why Jatin Jalundhwala would want to create charge on immoveable property so that GTB decided extend Rs 12.5 crores to Core Health care especially when it would not derive any benefit to the shareholders of Rupmangalam and Flovin.

2. GTB officers at the time of appraisal as part of due diligence exercise would have carried out search of ROC records by paying search fees with ROC prior to August 1998. They would have further observed that Jatin Jalundhwala had not filed any audited balances sheet pertaining to Rupmangalm Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd under his signature as director along with the signature of the auditors Kashiparekhs. This due diligence exercise has been deliberately avoided in collusion with each other.

3. GTB officers at the time of appraisal in 1998 would have noticed from ROC records that Dhanyushaya had not submitted any balance sheet which showed that they were the sole shareholders of Rupmanglam and Flovin so as to allow legal directors of Rupmangalam and Flovin to create legal charge on immoveable property . GTB officers as well as OBC management would have such legal knowledge that without concurrence of the legal shareholders it is not possible to create charge on immoveable property. Neither GTB officials nor OBC bank officials can plead ignorance and/or play blind.

4. The GTB management has openly flouted the stay orders passed by the Revenue department of Gujarat Government at the time of creation of charge in August 1998 for Rs 11 crores as evident from the record of right 7/12. The bank documentation furnished in the court proceedings does not show that the stay was lifted by revenue department at the time of creation of charge and this shows that Jatin Jalundhwala had colluded with the management of GTB to create charge on immoveable property illegally as well as fraudulently.

5. It has been standard and prudent practice of any conservative banker to collect the background history by going through the papers such as memorandum of understandings and seek detailed clarification as to when Mr. Jalundhwala has received the documents of ownership from the escrow persons consisting of Hemant Kashiparekh and Saurabh Soparkar along with their written notarized affidavit especially when the amount of loan exceeds Rs 10 crores. This has not been done by the officers of Global Trust Bank at the time of appraisal.

6. GTB officials as well as OBC officials cannot take a stand of ignorance that the presence of any additional director gives an automatic right to the so called additional director to continue beyond next annual general meeting.

7. GTB officials as well as OBC officials would have atleast sense to understand that once the term of additional director expires then such so called additional director after his term as additional director does not have any authority to accept resignation of any director. Neither GTB officials nor OBC officials can plead ignorance to such fundamentals.

8. GTB officials would have known from the court proceedings that Jatin Jalundhwala and Dhanyushaya has failed to furnish various documents to the court commissioner as well as to the Judiciary following documents as referred in para nine of the Appeal from order:- http://www.afo176.blogspot.com

· Statutory records such as minute book of directors and shareholders of Rupmanglam .

· Share certificates pertaining to Rupmangalam .

· Share transfer forms pertaining to Rupmangalam

· Share Registar of Rupmangalam

· Audited balance sheet from 96 onwards in relation to Rupmangalm along with acknowledgment of income tax returns filed and assessment orders.

· 37I permission from the income tax department in relation to the property owned by Rupmangalam in particular.

· Copy of all documents furnished to the Registrar of companies along with copy of acknowledgment from 31-3-95.

· All correspondence with directors and shareholders .

· All correspondence and documents for availing facility from defendant 4.

· Auditor report for share transfer in respect of shares of Rupmangalam Investment

· Audited balance sheet of defendant 1 from 1996 onwards till date.

9. The management of OBC would furnish a detailed explanation of written arguments furnished by the undersigned to the judiciary so as to impart clarity of facts.

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/10/written-arguments-presented-by-mr-mody.html

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/text-of-written-arguments-on-17-3-2003.html

10. GTB management at the time of appraisal facilites in 1998 is supposed to have studied Core Health Care balance sheets and is supposed to have observed that a case was filed against for recovery of dues and hence, GTB manangement must not have sanctioned term loan facilities at all to Core Health care Ltd.( Directors report of Core Health care for 96-97 referred that … " One of the lenders also took harsh action by initiating legal proceedings." Oriental Bank of officers ought to have taken criminal action against all the concerned officials of GTB in sanctioning the facilities of Core Healthcare and OBC management cannot be a mute spectator and turn a blind eye . Simultaneously OBC has to take criminal action against directors of Core Health care for colluding with the management of GTB.

11. GTB management of the time of appraisal facilities in 1998 must have observed that Core Healthcare had advanced interest-free loan to Technology Finance having Jatin Jalundhwala as the director of Technology Finance. Any prudent and conservative banker would have questioned the Board of Directors of Core Healthcare as to the reason why they are seeking interest bearing loan from GTB where Jatin Jalundhwala is signatory to creation of charge. This establishes collusion of GTB management with this group that GTB is helping them to siphon the funds to be utilized for the purpose other then those for which the loan was sought to be begged for. It would be apparent from the notice given to Core Healthcare on 12-1-2000 The following internet link shows the details :-

http://gtbcore.blogspot.com/2004_07_28_gtbcore_archive.html

16. It is necessary that OBC furnishes a detailed reply to the letter addressed by undersigned on 19-5-2004 as referred in the link as under:-

http://gtbcore.blogspot.com/2004_06_06_gtbcore_archive.html

17. GTB as well as Oriental Bank of Commerce cannot blindly and conveniently accept the so called judicial orders of amalgamation of various companies with Span Medicals. It is supposed to collect and verify all the supporting evidences from Jatin Jalundhwala while recording statement of directors of Span Medicals, Mrs Swati Soparkar –advocate who followed the procedures of amalgamation while taking written joint affidavits from Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala and the escrow persons , Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh and Mr. Saurabh Soparkar. When the officers of Oriental Bank of Commerce fails to take such action inspite of knowledge of court proceedings as well as my correspondence to them , then it clearly means that that the management of OBC is deliberately want to infringe on my rights by illegally encroaching and trespassing the immoveable property. In absence of such minute verification it is not ethical as well as legal to grab the possession of immoveable property on pretext that the same is exclusively owned by so called Span Medicals. This shows collusion of officers of Oriental Bank of Commerce to openly carry the loot.

18. What prevents OBC to take criminal action on Sushil Handa and Jatin Jalundhwala to attend the criminal defamation case 3326/99 launched by Core Health care in light of email to OBC on 27-12-2004 and thereby compel them to arrange other collateral while handing over the possession to the undersigned in light of the email sent to OBC on 27-12-2004.

19. You shall furnish copy of all the documents filed with ROC as regards to Core Health care , Dhanyushya Financial , Rupmangalam, Flovin, Span Medicals from 1996 onwards referring the details of document number and the date of creation of document with ROC.

20. GTB management has not demanded from Dhanyushya and Jalundhwala 37-I permission under Chapter XX- C OF THE Income Tax Act for showing constructed portion of bunglow property in Dhanyushaya which exclusively belonged to Rupmanglam as per the charge documents created and filed with ROC. In absence of 37-I permission the transfer of constructed property to Dhanyushya is void ab initio.