IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –
II, KOLKATA.
15N, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, 4th
Floor, Kolkata – 700 087.
O.A. No. 111
of 2007.
BETWEEN
SYNDICATE
BANK_____APPLICANT.
A N D
MR. ASIS MONDAL
& OTHERS.___________DEFENDANTS.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS
NOS. 1, 2, AND 3, SRI ASIS MONDAL, SMT. SUJATA MONDAL, AND SRI PRADIP KUMAR
MONDAL.
The Defendants above named
states as follows :
- The
Original Application / Suit is not maintainable either in facts or in its
present form.
- The
Applicant / Plaintiff has no cause of
action for the Suit / original application.
- The
present Original application / suit is barred by the principles of
estoppel, waiver, and acquiseence.
- The
Suit / Original Application is a result of deep rooted conspiracy and
collusion amongst the bank personnel, who have wrongfully and illegally
conspired and colluded with each other to cause undue harassment to these
defendants on the basis of purported documents containing forged
signatures of the defendant nos. 1 and 2, as well as of the defendant no.
3, as well at the relevant pages of the documents, Xerox copies of which
have been annexed to the plaint / original application. In fact these
defendants called upon the plaintiff to produce originals of the said documents
prior to the date of hearing enabling these defendants to inspect the
original of such purported documents and to file additional written
statement on disclosure of further details in that regard and in such
circumstances these defendants reserve their right to amend the written
statement or to file additional written statement as the case may be to
that effect at the appropriate time and juncture.
- Save
and except the statements of the plaint specifically admitted herein, the
defendants denies each and every other states as alleged in the plaint /
original application and puts the plaintiff / applicant to the strict
proof thereof.
- The
statements as alleged in paragraph nos. 5.1 and 5.8 of the plaint /
original application are more or less matters of record but the defendants
does not admit anything which is beyond record and is not supported by
record and the plaintiff / applicant is also to prove the statements as
alleged in paragraph no. 5.2 of the plaint / original application, as such
the defendants never applied for any financial facilities as alleged by
the plaintiff Bank and the documents the plaintiff bank relied upon are
all forged as the signatures of the defendants are not there and the
signature as shown therein are all manufactured and fabricated, and thus
those signatures are not the signatures of the defendants. In particular
the defendant no.1, had never applied before the plaintiff bank for
sanction of such alleged loan or credit facility for using the said sum as
working capital for his business as has been untruly and falsely alleged.
In this regard the defendant no.1, in particularly categorically states
and submits on perusal of the Xerox copies of the purported application
annexed to the plaint / original application that the alleged signatures
purportedly of the defendant no. 1, 2, and 3 as appearing at the relevant
pages of the said purported documents are forged signature of the
defendants nos. 1, 2, and 3, thus categorically deny and disputes those
signatures are as their own. The signatures appearing in the said
application in the name of the defendant no. 1, are all forged signatures.
Without admitting any of such alleged statements as alleged in the said
paragraph under reply of the plaint these defendants further states that
on careful perusal of the annexures
to the plaint it appears that there is no photographs of the applicant in
space provided in the front page of the said application – far less to
speak of the signature of the said alleged applicant.
- That
the defendant nos. 2 and 3, are specifically and categorically denied that
they did execute any guarantee for the purpose of such alleged loan and on
perusal of the Xerox copies of the annexures to the plaint / original
application, this defendants learnt that the signature of them as shown in
the relevant columns are forged and they categorically denied the said
signatures as their own. The present suit / proceeding is a result of deep
rooted conspiracy of the plaintiff bank’s employee, who causes all such
purported purposive act and omissions as to misappropriation of funds
entrusted upon them by the Government or the concern authority, and
whereas these defendants are the victim of the act and omission caused by
the employee and or personnel of the plaintiff bank.
- The
allegations as alleged and described in paragraph nos. 5.9 to 5.12 of the
plaint / original application are all emphatically denied by these
defendants as the same are not at all true or correct in view of what have
been stated above.
- With
regard to the statements as alleged in paragraphs nos. 5.13 to 5.26 of the
plaint these defendants submit that the said purported notice of Bhudeb
Kumar Pal, Advocate and Sri H.L. Shukla, Advocate, being illegal, invalid
and bad in law and as such these defendants had no obligation to comply
withy the fanciful requisition made therein. These defendants are not at
all liable to pay any such alleged sum as has been untruly alleged in the
plaint nor they are at all liable to pay any interest or other expenses in
the manner it has been fancifully claimed by the plaintiff. The purported statements of accounts as
shown in the said plaint are absolutely untrue and are contrary to record
and is not at all based on genuine documents or true facts and as such the
same are emphatically denied and disputed. The defendant no.4, did not at
all deposited the title deed as mentioned in the contents of the plaint /
original application, as such the statements to that effect as alleged
therein are emphatically denied.
- The
defendants state and submits that the Plaintiff Bank always failed to
authenticate it’s claim and to provide the documents and or papers related
to the financial facility as allegedly granted by them to the defendants,
on any occasions, whatsoever.
- The
defendants state and submits that the plaintiff bank claim is not a debt
as defined under the Law, as such the claim of plaintiff bank before the
Hon’ble Tribunal cant not sustained.
- The
Suit / Original Application is barred by the Limitation and not
maintainable in it’s present form.
- The
Suit / Original Application is barred by the provision of Section 18 of
the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act’ 1993, and
not maintainable in it’s present form.
- The
Suit / Original Application is not in accordance with the provision of
Section 17 of the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institution
Act’ 1993, and not maintainable in it’s present form.
- The
Suit / Original Application is an out come of deep rooted conspiracy of
the employee, bank manager of the plaintiff bank, and thus the claim of
the plaintiff bank does not fall under the provisions of Section 17 of the
Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act’ 1993, and not
maintainable in it’s present form.
- The
cause of action for the suit has not arisen in the manner as alleged in
the plaint / Original Application and the plaintiff can not be said to
have any cause of action for the suit. In fact, the suit is bad for multi
– feriousness of cause of action.
- The
suit is not properly valued and the court fees paid therein is
insufficient in Law. The verification in support of the plaint is
defective.
- There
is no schedule in the plaint and the plaint is defective in that regard as
well and is liable to fail. On that score. The plaintiff is not entitled
to the decree / relief as prayed for.
- The
Suit is vexatious, frivolous, harassing, and is liable to be dismissed
with cost.
- The
Suit is an outcome of ill feeling between the parties, thus liable to be
dismissed with cost.
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Asis Mondal, Son
of Sri Amiya Mondal, aged about _______ years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation – Business,
residing at 3A, M.M. Dutta Road, Post Office and Police Station – Budge Budge,
Kolkata – 700 137, District – South 24 Parganas.
.
I,
the above deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1
: That I am the defendant no.1 in the above Suit / case, thoroughly conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the present case and am competent to swear
this affidavit. I am also duly authorized to swear this affidavit on behalf of
the defendant no. 2, Smt. Sujata Mondal and defendant no. 3, Sri Pradip Kumar
Mondal.
2
: That the facts contained in aforesaid Written Statement, the contents of
which have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity may be read as an
integral part of this affidavit and are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
Verification
I,
the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, and no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Verified
this ………….the day of …………….2013, at Kolkata.
DEPONENT
Identified
by me,
Advocate.
Prepared
in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Dated
:……………2013.
Place
: Kolkata.
N
O T A R Y
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
– II, KOLKATA.
15N,
Nellie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata – 700 087.
O.A. no. 111 of 2007.
SYNDICATE BANK _____APPLICANT.
A N D
SRI. ASIS MONDAL & ORS. __________DEFENDANTS.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
SRI PROBHAT KUMAR SIL
ADVOCATE.
HIGH COURT AT
aksingh872.blogspot.com
ReplyDelete