REJOINDER AGAINST THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NOS, 1 AND 3

 

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI 2ND. FLOOR, PCM TOWER, 2ND MILE, SEVOKE ROAD, SILIGURI-734-001, WEST BENGAL

O.A. NO. 15 of 2024.

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK.

(Erstwhile United Bank of India)   

                                 …...APPLICANT

-VS-         

M/S H.M.ENTERPRISE AND OTHERS

     ……DEFENDANTS

 

REJOINDER AGAINST THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NOS, 1 AND 3

 

1) That the written statement filed by the defendants stating the facts and the allegations made therein against the Applicant Bank are not maintainable in law as well as on facts. It is further submitted that the said facts and allegations made therein are all after thought made for the purpose of this case.

2) That the statements made therein in different paragraphs of the written statements are after thought made for the purpose of this case and the same are emphatically denied by the applicant Bank.

3) That it is denied that the OA is barred by law of limitation. It is submitted that unless the ground of limitation against the filing of the above OA is specifically noted in the written statement, the applicant bank cannot describe and challenge the same specifically. The applicant bank reserves its right to challenge the same as and when the defendant specifically mentioned the same.

4) That it is submitted that the suit is maintainable in its present form.

5) That it is denied that the case is bad for non-joinder and/or mis-joinder of cause of action.

 

6) That it is specifically denied that the Applicant Bank has lodged false, imaginary and inflated claim against the defendants. It is submitted that the defendants are duty bound to specify what portion of the claim in the Original Application of the Applicant Bank are false, imaginary and inflated claim. As such unless the same is specify the Applicant Bank not in a position to reply the same

7) That the statements made in Para 1 of the Written statement filed by the above named Defendants are not correct. The defendants have stated the said statements only to avoid clear the outstanding dues as claimed by the Applicant Bank. It is submitted that the Defendant No. 2 on her bare perusal of the Plaint found that the contents and statements of the Plaint are false, concocted and based on false summarization.

8) That the statements and allegations made in Para 2 of the above noted Written statement are after thought for the purpose of defending this case and made falsely against the Bank Officials. It is submitted that all the documents executed by both the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as partners of the defendant No. 1 of the above case. It is specifically denied that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have no iota or any knowledge of the Partnership concern. It is specifically denied that the conspiracy of the Bank Officials of the Applicant Bank abetted for such M/s. H. M. Enterprise or that shown as a Partnership Firm showing the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are Partners of the defendant No. 1. The documents annexed with the OA will go to show that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 jointly shown themselves as Partners of the defendant No. 1 Partnership Firm. Moreover, none of the defendant on receiving the 13(2) demand notice raised any question that the defendant No. 2 and 3 are not the Partners of the defendant No. 1. Moreover in the instant written statement the defendant also put her signatures by impressing the Rubber stamp of the defendant No. 1 as partner. It is further specifically denied that the defendants acted as suggested by the Bank Officials of the Applicant Bank.

9) That the statements and allegations made in Para-3 of the written Statement of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the Plaint is not in the prescribe form as emphasized in Section 19 of the RDBFI Act, 1993.

10) That the statements made in Para 4 of the Written statement of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is submitted that the cause of action as shown in the Plaint before the Hon'ble Tribunal according to the provisions of law and the cause of action shown in the OA are on the basis of papers and documents.

11) That the statements made in Para - 5 of the Written Statement of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the present Plaint has no lawful claim or that the said is liable to be dismissed inlimnie.

12) That the statements and allegations made in Para Written Statement of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence 6 of the denied. It is denied that the Plaint has not been placed even by competent person. As such the question of dismissal of the Plaint on the said ground does not arise at all.

13) That the statements and allegations made in Para 7 of the Written Statement of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are also not correct. It is specifically denied-that the Plaint has not been placed even with the true facts and states of affairs or that the same not been placed with clean hands. As such the question of dismissal of the Plaint does not arise all.

14) It is denied that the Plaint is motivated, harassed or without any competency as stated in Para-8 of the Written Statement.

15) With regards to the statements made in Para 9 of the Written statement the answering Applicant Bank submits that the defendants did not specifically mention in the Written Statements who is the necessary parties in this proceeding. The Applicant Bank has made parties in this proceeding on the basis of the annexed documents both as borrower, Partners and guarantor.

16) With regards to the statements made in Paras-10 and 11 of the Written Statement of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that unless the specific denied in respect of particular paragraphs have made, the Applicant Bank reserves its right to submit proper answer to the same.

17) With regards to the statements made in Para-12 of Sub-Paras (i) and (ii) of the Written Statement of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the answering Applicant Bank submits that the said loan has/had no connection with the instant proceeding. It is submitted that the said loan being Account No. 0700250029698 was in the name of M/s. Rana Raja Bastralaya and after closure of the said loan the same was closed and the closure certificate was issued on 15/03/2019.

18) With regards to the statements and allegations made in Sub-Para (iii) of Para 12 of the Written statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the answering Applicant Bank submits that on the basis of prayer of the Defendant No. 1 through its Partners the Applicant Bank on 01/08/2018 accorded sanction a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 40.00 Lacs in favor of the Defendant No. 1 of which the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are Partners on several terms and conditions. The copy of the said sanction letter has already been annexed with the OA in Page No. 103 containing the terms and conditions of loan which the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 put their signatures with rubber stamps as partner of the Defendant No. 1. It is a lie to say that the concerned manager allowed the Defendants to liquidate the existing three loan accounts from the said sanction limit. The said statements made by the Defendants No. 1 and 3 for the purpose of defending their case for making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank. It is submitted that it is the duty to prove by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 regarding make contact with the several persons as noted in the said Sub Para by producing relevant documents and further submit that the Defendants above named are responsible to prove the same.

19) With regards to the statements and allegations made in Sub Para-(iv) of Para-12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, the Applicant Bank submits that the Defendant No. 2 has created Equitable mortgage of her Title Deed being Deed No. 1-2179 for the year 2000 with the Applicant Bank as co-lateral security against loan granted to the Defendants. It is submitted that the Defendants failed to liquidate the loan amount with up-to-date accrued interest, the question of return back the said Title Deed to the Defendant No. 2 does not arise at all.

20) That the statements and allegations made in Sub Para (v) of Para-12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank respectfully submits that the Defendant Nos. 2 is solely responsible to prove the allegations made in the said sub para against the manager of the Applicant Bank Mr. Shrivastav that the said manager has taken a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in Cash from the Defendant No. 2 in the year 2020 for the treatment of his father and the Applicant Bank is not aware regarding the said transaction. It is also submitted that the Defendants are further responsible to prove that the said manager again visited the house of the Defendants and also ask for money. It is submitted that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are responsible to prove by producing the document that the said manager ever promised to deposit the previous Rs. 3,00,000/- and the subsequent Rs. 8,00,000/- in the account of the Defendant or that took that money and promised to deposit the previous Rs. 3,00,000/- and present Rs. 8,00,000/- in the loan account of the Defendants. It is the duty and responsibility of the Defendant Nos. 2 that the said manager again visited the house of the Defendant No. 2 and ask for Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of opening the Loan Account having subsidy facility. The Defendant No. 2 is solely responsible to prove that she paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in Cash and Rs. 1,50,000/- in Cheque. It is also the responsibility of the Defendant No. 2 that the said manager Mr. Shrivastav has not given her certificate against her Gold Bond of 12 Gram for which Rs, 60,000/- was given.

21) With regards to the statements and allegations made in Sub Para-(vi) of Para- 12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that it is the duty of the Defendant No. 2 to prove that the said manager Mr. Shrivastav was responsible to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in her aforesaid Loan Account as the Applicant Bank has/had no knowledge regarding the said transaction. It is solely responsible to prove by the Defendant No. 2 that she has paid a sum of Rs. 16,000/- for medical benefit or that the said manager did not handed over the Mediclaim certificate. It is further submitted that the Applicant Bank is not aware whether Mr. Jagadish Mondal handed over the key of shop room to the Defendant No. 2 as because the Applicant Bank do not know the said Mr. Jagadish Mondal. The Applicant Bank is also not aware that whether Jagadish Mondal took the name of Surajit or Sekhar of the Bank who would solver her problem. It is also specifically submitted that the Defendant Nos. are solely responsible to prove that Mr. Arun Babu of the Bank in parts took Rs. 14,00,000/- Only from the Defendants against booking of a flat. It is a lie to say that the question of preparation of any agreement of sale or that the question of return back the money to the Defendants ever arose at any point of time. It is further submitted that the Defendant No. 2 ever submitted any application and/complain to the Bank authority at any said para. As such the Defendant No. 2 is solely responsible to prove the point of time immediately after payment of the said money as alleged in the said allegations made against the Bank officials by producing the documents before the Ld. Forum.

 

22) That the statements and allegations made in Sub Para - (vii) of Para- 12 of the Written statement of the Defendants are not correct hence denied. It is denied that in the possession notice the Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank has shown in one place the total outstanding amount as Rs. 69,27,691.87 and in another place, it has shown the outstanding as Rs. 18,83,206.87.

23) That the statements made in Sub Para (viii) of Para- 12 of the Written Statements of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the Defendant No. 2 never have been provided with the Loan account. It is a lie to say that it is the conspiracy of the Bank officials or that the Defendant No. 2 has made party falsely.

24) With regards to statements made in sub para - (ix) of Para- 12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that no claim ever been made in the instant original application against the answering Defendants in respect of Account no. 0700306742490 and as such the Applicant Bank has nothing to submit regarding the said Loan account at this stage.

25) That the statements and allegations made in sub para- (x) of Para-12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are nothing but afterthought for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank. It is specifically denied that the Bank authority ever seeking time for investigation of the allegations made in the said Annexure- "B" documents as before filing this Written Statement the Bank authority was not aware regarding the said allegations. It is submitted that there is not iota of evidence annexed with the Annexures-"B" documents to prove that any of the said complain ever been served upon the Applicant Bank.

26) With regards to statements made in sub para- (xi) of Para-12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, the Applicant Bank submits in terms of sanction of Housing Loan in favour of the Defendant No. 2, the Defendant No. 2 has created equitable mortgage of original title deed being No. 1-2179 for the year 2000 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The copy of the said title deed along with translation copy has already been annexed along with the O.A.

 

 

27) With regards to the statements made in sub para- (xii) of Para-12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank 10 submits that the statements and allegations made in the said Para are not correct made for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful Joss to the Applicant Bank. It is submitted that the defendants purposely failed to repay the loan account for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank. It is a lie to say that the lawst Instalment repayable by the defendant is due on much later as of Rs. 17,260/- only. It is equally a lie to say that the loan Account No. 0700306734640 has been assigned by the Respondent.

28) That the statements made in Sub-Para (xiii) of Para 12 of the written statement of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct made for the purpose of this case hence denied. It is denied that the defendant No. 2 regularly paid the EMI to the Applicant Bank. The defendants are responsible to proof that they have deposited the EMI in terms of the loan account by producing documents in the loan account. The borrower is responsible to proof that he is paid the last EMI in the month of May, 2020.

29) With regards to the statements made in Sub-Para (xiv) of Para 12 of the written statements of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that the apart from Hypothecation of Moveable Hypothecated Goods the Applicant Bank created Equitable Mortgage of the landed property by deposited the title deed being Deed No. 1-2179, for the year 2002 in the name of the defendant No. 2. The detail description of the said Mortgaged Property has elaborately stated in the Original Application.

30) That the statements made in Sub-Para (xv) of Para 12 of the written statement are matter of record and the Applicant Bank craves leave to submit on the same at the time of hearing.

31) That the statements and averments made in Sub-Paras (xvi), (xvii), (xviii) of Para 12 are also matters of record and the Applicant Bank craves leave to submit on the same at the time of hearing.

32) That the statements made in Sub-Para (xix) of Para 12 of the Written Statement are not denied by the Applicant Bank. It is submitted that by issuing the same demand notice, the Applicant Bank never threatened the Defendants. It is the convention in the legal proceeding by issuing any such demand notice, the purpose of sending the said demand notice to be written and accordingly it has written but inspite of receipt the said notice the defendants failed to comply the same, the legal proceeding shall be initiated by the Applicant Bank. As such the question of illegality in issuing the said demand notice does not arise at all.

33) With regards to statements made in Sub Para- (xx) and (xxi) of Para 12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that the Applicant Bank has strictly maintained the RBI circular time to time. It is submitted that the Defendants did not specifically alleged any allegations regarding non compliance of the RBI guidelines during the COVID period

34) With regards to statements made in Sub Para- (xxii) of Para 12 of the Written Statements of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that in terms of circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 27/03/2020 under circular no. RB1/2019-20/188 which are specifically permitted the financial institution to grant moratorium of three months on payment of all installments falling due between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 but according to the allegations made in the instant sub para the demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 14/09/2021 and as such the Applicant Bank did not violate the aforesaid circular of the Reserve Bank of India.

35) With regards to the statements made in Sub Para- (xxiii) of Para 12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that as the said demand notice was issued and served upon the Defendants without violating the circular of Reserve Bank of India, the subsequent notice under section 13(4) was rightly issued.

36) With regards to the statements made in Sub Paras- (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi) of Para 12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that it is not a fact that the Defendants on receiving the demand notice ever rushed to the Applicant Bank. It is specifically denied that no demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARAESI Act ever been served upon the Defendants. The copy of Demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the track report annexed with the OA will go to show that the same was served to the Defendants. It is submitted that the Defendants has made the above allegations for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank.

37) With regards to the statements made in Sub Para- (xxvii), (xxviii) (xxix) and (xxx) of Para 12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank respectfully submits that the Defendants for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank have purposely suppressed the facts of service of demand notice. It is submitted that there is no provision to communicate about NPA of the loan account before issuing the aforesaid 13(2) demand notice. It is the obligatory duty of the borrower as well as the guarantors to maintain the loan accounts according to the terms and conditions of the loan strictly and in default the account shall automatically became Non-Performing Asset and as such after classifying the loan account as NPA, the Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank issued the said demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. As such the service of said demand notice is very much legal and enforceable.

38) With regards to the statements made in Sub Para- (xxxi) and (xxxii) of Para 12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that whatever order was passed in the two S.A matters being no. 26 of 2022 and 27 of 2022 are matters of record and the Applicant Bank craves leave to submit on the same at the time of hearing.

39) With regards to the statements and allegations made in Sub Para-(xxxiii) of Para 12 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that nowhere in the aforesaid S.A the Hon'ble Presiding Officer in the earlier two S.As set aside the demand notice under section 13(2) in the final order and judgement. It is submitted that the Ld. Presiding Officer in its judgement specifically stated that although the demand notice and the postal receipt were filed by the Applicant bank but failed to prove that the said demand notice were served upon the Defendants. The Applicant Bank along with the O.A has filed the Track Report to prove that the 13(2) demand notice were duly been served upon the addressees.

40) That the statements made in Para 14 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct maliciously made for the purpose of this case hence denied. It is denied that the original application is not in its present form or that the plaint is speculative, harassing, motivated, concocted and baseless as barred by principle of law or that the plaint is liable to be rejected.

41) With regards to the statements made in Para 15 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that the Applicant Bank along with the Original Application has annexed the several documents and the same have already been exhibited in the record.

42) With regards to the statements made in Para 16 of the Written Statement of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that the statements and averments made in Paras- 1,2,3,4 and 5 are according to the loan documents and papers executed by the Defendants in favour of the Bank and as such the disputes raised by the Defendants are after thought made for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank. It is specifically denied that M/S. H.M Enterprise was a creation of Bank official. The onus lies upon the Defendants to prove the said allegations by producing the documents as M/S. H.M Enterprise was a creation of Bank official. It is submitted that on perusing the loan documents including demand promissory note the Defendants put their signatures as partners of Defendant No. 1 by impression of partnership rubber stamp. It is a lie to say that the Defendants have no partnership firm. It is not a fact that the Applicant Bank has no authority to realize the outstanding dues from unregistered partnership firm. It is denied that under the provision of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 the financial institution cannot sue to enforce a right arising from contract with unregistered partnership Firm. It is denied that the Defendant No. 2 never have been provided with the alleged loan account or that it is a conspiracy of the Bank official. It is submitted that in the earlier SARFAESI proceeding the Ld. Tribunal opine that the Applicant Bank failed to produce the service report of the said demand notices. Accordingly the Ld. Presiding officer pleased to set aside the SARFAESI proceeding in the earlier S.A filed by the Defendants. But in the present O.A the Applicant Bank has filed the Track Report along with service proof and as such the Original Application has filed by the Applicant Bank under section 19 of the ROBFI Act, 1993 after strictly compliance the provision of the said act. It is specifically denied that the borrower never received loan from the Applicant Bank. It is denied that any communication regarding NPA and demand has ever been served by the Applicant Bank on the Defendants on any occasion prior to filing the present Original Application.

43) With regards to the statements and averment made in Para-17 of the Written statement of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that Section 19 of the RDBFI Act, 1993 deal with the Recovery of outstanding dues where the outstanding dues is Rs. 20 Lakhs or more so. As such the instant Original Application filed by the Applicant Bank for recovery of the outstanding dues with further relief or reliefs. It is submitted that as the claim amount is more than Rs. 20.00 Lacs as the Financial Institution according to the provisions of law has filed the instant Suit under the Provisions of RDBFI Act, 1993 after amending the said Act.

44) That the statements and allegations made in Paras-18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct maliciously made for the purpose of this case and the same are emphatically denied by the Applicant Bank. It is denied that the Chief Manager of the Bank who has filed the instant Original Applicant against the defendants cannot file an original Application under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act, 1993 without providing his authority through a valid competency certificate or authorization. As already stated, that the concerned Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank after obtaining the Power of attorney has filed the above OA and as such the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is valid in the eye of law. As such the instant OA is maintainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 without going through the record have alleged the aforesaid allegations against the Applicant Bank for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank.

45) That the statements and allegations made in Paras - 24 and 25 of the written statement filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is submitted that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 without going through the copy of Original Application have purposely alleged that no cause of action ever been disclosed in the OA. It is submitted that the cause of action has specifically mention in Page-22 of the Original Application. It is further submitted that the copy of demand notice and the track report of service proof of the demand notice have already been annexed with the Original Application.

 

46) With regards to the statements and allegations made in Paras - 26 and 27 of the Written Statement filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that the cause of action specifically stated in the Original Application which the Applicant Bank craves leave to submit on the same at the time of hearing. It is submitted that the cause of action which have mentioned in the instant Original Application is valid in the eye of law and as such the OA filed by the Applicant Bank is maintainable.

47) With regards to the statements and allegations made in Para - 28 of the Written Statement filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 without going to the Original Application has purposely alleged that the Applicant bank in the prayer of the said Original Application has prayed for a decree. It is specifically mentioned in the Relief portion of the OA that the Applicant Bank sought for issuance of certificate of the claim amount as per provision of law.

48) That the statements and allegations made in Para 29 of the Written Statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is denied that no cause of action specifically mentioned in the Original Application. The Defendant Nos.1 and 3 for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank.

49) That the statements and allegations made in Para 30 of the Written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is submitted that without perusing the Original Application the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 alleged the instant allegations for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank. It is further specifically denied by the Applicant Bank that the Applicant Bank in the Instant OA ever prayed for a decree instead of issuance of recovery certificate. It is further submitted that the Applicant Bank in the prayer portion has specifically sought for issuance the recovery certificate as claimed by the Applicant Bank.

50) That the statements and allegations made in Paras - 31, 32 and 33 of the Written Statement filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the Original Application filed by the Applicant Bank beyond the period of limitation. It is submitted that under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides to enforce payment of money secured by mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property is for a period of 12 (twelve) years when the money sued for become due. As such the instant loan is secured by immovable property by depositing the title deed of the mortgager and as such the instant recovery suit has filed by the Applicant within the aforesaid period of Limitation.

51) That the statements and allegations made in Para 34 of the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the relief sought for in the Original Application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 are without the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Tribunal. It is submitted that the onus lies upon the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to prove that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

52) That the statements and allegations made in Para - 35 of the written statement filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the reliefs claimed by the Applicant Bank is unlawful or that the said claim has not been based on the lawful manner or that the calculation of interest and other charges if any are not in accordance with law. It is denied that the purported claim cannot be said to place by the Applicant Bank in its clean hand. It is submitted that the Defendants are solely responsible to prove that the claim of the Bank is not in accordance with law.

53) That the statements and allegations made in Para 36 of the Written Statement filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the present Original Application under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act, 1993 is not sustainable under the law or that the said application may be dismissed.

54) That the statements and allegations made in Para 37 of the Written Statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are not correct hence denied. It is denied that there is no merit in the said Original Application under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act, 1993.

55) With regards to the statements and allegations made in Para-38 of the Written Statement filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 the Applicant Bank submits that the Defendants above named failed to make out any case in their favour and as such there is no scope to dismiss the above Original Application in any manner whatsoever.

56) That the written statement filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 alleging several allegations which is not sustainable under the provision of law and the allegations made in the Written Statement made for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank.

57) That the written statement filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 is malafide for the purpose of wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank.

58) That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the allegations made in the aforesaid Written Statement by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are after thought for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss and also tried to make out the story for illegal gain and as such the Defendants are not entitled to get any relief on the basis of their aforesaid Written Statement which are completely suppressing the facts and taking several illegal allegations against several officer of the Applicant Bank for the purpose of wrongful gain and as such the application filed by the Applicant Bank may be allowed with exemplary cost against the Defendants for delay in recovery of the outstanding dues of public money from the Defendants for the ends of justice

 

 

 

 

VERIFICATION

 

I Sri Deepak Kumar Sah, Son of Sudama Prasad Sah, aged about 48 years, Hindu by religion, Service by occupation at present working at Punjab National Bank as chief manager now posted at ARM, Siliguri, United Bank Building, 2nd Floor, Hill Cart Road, P.O. and P.S. Siliguri, District Darjeeling. Pin Code-734-001 as Chief Manager do hereby verify that the statements made in Paras 7 to 55 above are true to my knowledge derived from the Bank's record and the rest are my submission and I sign this Verification this the           Day of February, 2026 at Siliguri.

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT

 

I Sri Deepak Kumar Sah, Son of Sudama Prasad Sah, aged about 48 years, Hindu by religion, Service by occupation at present working at Punjab National Bank as chief manager now posted at ARM, Siliguri, United Bank Building, 2nd Floor, Hill Cart Road, P.O. and P.S. Siliguri, District Darjeeling, Pin Code-734-001 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:

 

1) That I am the Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank now posted at ARM, Siliguri, United Bank Building, 2nd Floor, Hill Cart Road, P.O. and P.S. Siliguri, District Darjeeling, Pin Code-734-001 empowered to swear this affidavit.

 

……..This is true to my knowledge.

 

2) That I am fully conversant with the facts of the case.

 

………This is true to my knowledge.

 

3) That the statements made in Paras 7 to 55 above are true to my knowledge derived from the Bank's record and the rest are my submission and I sign this affidavit this the           Day of February, 2026 at Siliguri.

 

DECLARANT

IDENTIFIED BY ME

 

ADVOCATE: SILIGURI