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
REJOINER AGAINST THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
DEFENDANT NO. 2
1) That the written statement
filed by the Defendant 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 submitted that the
suit is maintainable in its present form.
4) With regards to the statements
and allegations made in Para – 1 of the Written statement filed by the
above-named Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the contents made
in the plaint and different statements made therein are not false. The statements
made in the said Application are on the basis of the documents executed by the
Defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank.
5) That the statements made in Para-2
of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2 are not correct hence denied.
It is denied that the Plaint is not in the prescribed form as emphasized in
Section 19 of the RDBFI Act, 1993. It is submitted that as the Original
Application prepared on the basis of prescribed format, the question of
dismissal of the plaint does not arise at all.
6) That the statements and
allegations made in Para – 3 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2
are not correct. It is denied That the Plaint is without any accrued cause of
action.
7) With regards to the statements made
in Para – 4 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank
submits that the Applicant Bank has filed the aforesaid original application on
the basis of lawful claim made therein which will be evidence from the
statement of account annexed with the original application. It is a lie to say
that the present plaint has no lawful claim. As the claim made in the original
application by the Applicant Bank is in accordance with the statement of
account, the question of dismissal of the plaint does not arise at all unless
the entire claim amount as per relief sought in the said original application
deposited by the Defendant No. 2.
8) That the statements and
allegations made in Para – 5 of the Written statement of the Defendant No. 2
are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the present plaint has not been
placed by the competent person. It is submitted that the authorized officer
duly filed the original application with general power of attorney issued by
the bank authority and as such the question of dismissal of the Plaint does not
arise at all.
9) That the statements and
allegations made in Para – 6 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2
are also not correct hence denied. It is denied that the Plaint has not been
placed with true facts and state of appears for that the same has not been
placed with clean hand. It is submitted that on the basis of bare statement of
the Defendant No. 2 wherein having no specific allegation, the question of
dismissal of the plaint does not arise at all.
10) That the statements and
allegations made in Para – 7 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2
are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the present Plaint is
motivated, harassed and without any competency.
11) With regards to the statements
made in Para – 8 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2 the Applicant
Bank submits that without mentioning the parties who are the non-joinder in the
plaint, the question of dismissal of the plaint does not arise at all. It is
submitted that law permits that the denial must be specific and unless the
specific denial is made no relief can be granted in favour of the objector.
12) With regards to statements
made in Para- 9 and 10 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2 the
Applicant Bank submits that the Applicant Bank has filed the above original
application on the basis of documents executed by the Defendants in favour of
the Bank and also on the basis of the statement of account as per provision of
law.
13) With regards to the
statements and allegations made in Sub Para – (i) and (ii) of Para- 11 of the
Written statement of the Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the
Defendant No. 2 has alleged the three loan accounts in the said sub paras being
Account No. 0711250029698, 0760210031824 and Account No. 0700250030834 have no
connection with the present Original Application. It is submitted that the
claim of the Applicant Bank in the Instant Original Application has no
connection with the aforesaid 3 (three) loan accounts. As such the said
statements made in the above sub paras have no basis at all.
14) That the statements and
allegations made in Sub Para – (iii) of Para-11 of the Written Statement of the
Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank respectfully submits that the Defendant No.
2 is solely responsible to prove the said allegations against the manager of
the Applicant Bank. The onus lies upon the Defendant No. 2 to prove the
allegations made in said para of the Written Statement. It is specifically
submitted that unless the Defendant No. 2 produce any document to show that the
manager told her that the Defendant No. 2 will get cheque within 4 (four) days,
the said allegations cannot be considered by the Ld. Tribunal. It is
respectfully submit that the onus lies upon the Defendant No. 2 to prove that
the Defendant contacted with Mr. Arun Babu or that Mr. Arun Babu asks the
concerned manager Mr. Srivastava to whom the Defendant submitted the 3 (three)
cheques.
15) With regards to the
statements and allegations made in Sub Para – (iv) of Para- 11 of the Written
Statement of the Defendant No. 2 the answering Applicant Bank submits that the
question of return back the title deed being deed no. I-2179/2000 in the name
of the Defendant No. 2 does not arise at all unless the entire loan amount with
up-to-date interest in liquidated by the Defendant No. 2. It is not a fact that
the Defendant No. 2 has paid the entire loan amount with interest to the
authority of the bank and as such the question of return back the said title
deed does not arise at all. It is the responsibility of the Defendant No. 2 to
prove that Mr. Srivastava requested the Defendant No. 2 not to disclose the
facts of handing over the cheque to said Mr. Srivastava to anybody.
16) With regards to the
statements and allegations made in Sub-Para – (v) of Para – 11 of the Written
statement of the Defendant No. 2 the answering Applicant Bank respectfully
submits that the authority of the Bank has/had no knowledge for payment of any amount
of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) Only by the Defendant No. 2 to Mr.
Srivastava. The onus lies upon the Defendant No. 2 to prove the said
allegations made in the instant sub para. It is submitted that before alleging
the instant allegations in the instant Written Statement against the Bank
official, the Defendant No. 2 did not alleged the said allegations before the
authority of the Bank and the said allegations made for the purpose of making
wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank. It is the sole
responsibility of the Defendant No. 2 that after a few days Mr. Srivastava
again came to residence of the Defendant No. 2 or that asked for money to save
another customer of the Bank whose account has been declared as NPA. It is not
within the knowledge of the Applicant Bank that the said Mr. Srivastava
promised to deposit the previous Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) Only and
Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) Only in the loan account of the Defendant
No. 2. It is also the duty and responsibility to prove that Mr. Srivastava again visited the
house of the Defendant No. 2 and asked her for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two
lakhs) only in lieu of opening a loan account having subsidy facility. It is
also submitted that the Applicant Bank has/had no knowledge for given or not
given any gold bond certificate worth Rs. 60,000/- only. It is submitted that
the Defendant No. 2 since 2020 till the date of filing of this Written
Statement did not submit any complain against any of the Bank official for the
alleged misappropriation of money with the higher authority and as such the
Applicant bank respectfully submits that all the aforesaid allegations against
the Applicant bank are after thought for the purpose of making wrongful gain by
causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank.
17) With regards to the
statements and allegations made in Sub Para-(vi) of Para- 11 of the Written
Statement of the Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the Bank
authority has/had no knowledge to return to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees
fifteen lakhs) only and/or deposit the same in the loan account of Defendant
No.2 by Mr. Srivastava which was given by the Defendant No. 2. It is submitted
that the Bank authority has/had no knowledge regarding the allegations made for
handing over the Mediclaim certificate for which the Defendant No. 2 has paid
Rs. 16,000/- only or that the said Mr. Srivastava took the names of Surajit and
Sekhar of the Bank who would solve her problem. It is further submitted that
the Defendant No. 2 is solely responsible to prove that Mr. Arun Babu of the
Bank in two parts took Rs. 14,00,000/- from the Defendant against booking a
flat as the Applicant Bank has/had no knowledge regarding the said transaction.
It is specifically submitted that the aforesaid allegations made in the Written
Statement by the Defendant No. 2 are all after thought made for the purpose of
making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank. It is
specifically submitted that the Defendant No. 2 till date did not lodge any
case in any court of law for the aforesaid allegations made in the aforesaid
sub para of the Written Statement.
18) With regards to the
statements made in Sub Para (vii) of Para- 11 of the Written Statement of the
Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank respectfully submits that the statement made
in the said sub para are matters of record and the Applicant Bank craves leave
to submit on the same at the time of hearing.
19) That the statements and
allegations made in Sub Para-(viii) of Para- 11 of the Written Statement of the
Defendant No. 2 are not correct made for the purpose of this case hence denied.
It is denied that the Defendant No. 2 never have been provided with the alleged
loan amount or that it is the conspiracy of the Bank official for which the
Defendant No. 2 has been impleaded as party in this proceeding.
20) With regards to the
statements and allegations made in Sub Para-(ix) of Para- 11 of the Written
Statement of the Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the Defendant
No. 2 on 04/05/2020 submitted an application for loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- Only
under PNB COVID-19 Loan Scheme and the same was accordingly sanctioned and the Defendant No. 2 after sanctioning the
said loan executed several loan documents on 04/05/2020 such as Demand
Promissory Note, Agreement of Loan, Agreement/Undertaking to mortgage executed
by the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and undertaking for COVID -19 Loan executed by
Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as partners of Defendant No. 1 and those documents have
already been filed in original as per the evidence-in-chief which have already
been exhibited. The Defendant No. 2 has alleged that the bank has sanctioned
the same and also withdraw Rs. 4,00,000/- only. It is submitted that no claim
ever been made in instant Original Application against loan account No. 0700306742490
where Rs. 2.81 Lakhs have been shown. The Applicant Bank craves leave to submit
on this point after explaining the entire facts in details by the Defendant No.
2 subsequently.
21) With regards to the
statements made in Sub Para – (x) of Para – 11 of the Written Statements of the
Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the Applicant Bank is not aware
of lodge of any complain to the police authority or Bank officials of which the
documents has enclosed by the Defendant No. 2 along with the Written Statement
as ANNEXURE – B. It is specifically
submitted that no acknowledgement is annexed with the said document by the
Defendant No. 2. The onus lies upon the Defendant No. 2 to prove the said
allegations as stated in the said Sub para of her Written Statement.It is
denied that the Defendant has defrauded by the Bank official and the said
allegations are completely after thought when the Defendant has failed to repay
the loan account with interest and also after filing the aforesaid Original Application. It is specifically
submitted that the documents as ANNEXURE – B filed by the Defendant No. 2
without any receive copy and the seal of the Bank and as such it shall be
presumed that the said documents are are after thought and prepared for the purpose
of this case.
22) With regards to
statements made in sub para- (xi) of Para- 11 of the Written Statement of the
Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that no SCHEDULE-A written in the
Written Statement by the Defendant No. 2. It is true that the Defendant No. 2
has created equitable mortgage by depositing the deed No. 2179 of the year 2000
in favour of the Applicant Bank against loan sanction and the detail
description of said property has specifically mentioned in SCHEDULE-IY of the
Original Application. It is submitted that the photocopy of Sanction letter
dated 18/11/2017 has already been annexed with Original Application and marked
as ANNEXURE-'G'.
23) With regards to the
statements made in sub para- (xii) of Para-11 of the Written Statement of the
Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the terms and conditions
repayment of the said Term Loan has specifically mentioned in the said sanction
letter and the Applicant Bank craves leave to submit the same at the time of
hearing.
24) That the statements made
in Sub Para- (xiii) of Para-11 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2
are not correct. It is like to say that the Defendant regularly paid the EMI to
the Applicant. From the statement of account of Account No. 0700306734640 will
go to show that the Defendant failed to deposit the EMI in terms of sanction.
25) With regards to statements
made in sub paras- (xiv) of Para-11 of the Written Statement of the Defendant
No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the Applicant Bank has extended the
mortgage already created previously in the Loan account being Account No.
070030673440. The Applicant Bank has already filed the extract copy of
statements of account as above along with others separate loan accounts being
Nos. 08223000036944, 0700250032294 and 0700306740359.
26) That the statements made in Sub-paras –
(xv), (xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) of Para – 11 of the Written statement of the
Defendant No. 2 are matters of record and the Applicant Bank craves leave to
submit on the same at the time of hearing.
27) With regards to the statements and
allegations made in Sub- Paras (xix) and (xx) of Para – 11 of the written
statement of the Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank respectfully submits that
the demand notice annexed with the written statements are matters of record. It
is specifically denied that any threatened ever been made by issuing the said
demand notice. The Applicant Bank craves leave to submit on the same at the
time of hearing. It is specifically submitted that by incorporating the said
statements in the instant Para and the previous para the defendant No. 2
specifically narrated the actual facts during the COVID-19 period but when the
said covid subside and normalcy come back, why the defendant No. 2 did not
deposit the NPA amount with upto date interest. The reasons for nonpayment of
the said nonpayment and deposit the outstanding dues did not categorically
stated in the written statement.
28) That the statements made in
Sub- Para – (xxi) of Para – 11 of the Written statement are also matters of
record and the Applicant Bank craves leave to submit on the same at the time of
hearing.
29) With regards to the
statements made in Sub-Paras – (xxii) and (xxiii) of Para – 11 of the Written
statement of the defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the question
of astonished by the defendant does not arise at all as the defendant failed to
comply the earlier demand notice regarding calling the entire NPA loan account
did not comply as stated in the demand notice Under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, the authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank compelled to
served and pasted the possession notice upon the defendant No. 2. Moreover by
incorporating the several allegations the defendant No. 2 accepted the service
of 13(2) demand notice, possession Notice in the instant Sub-Para of Para 11.
30) That the statements made in
Sub-Para – (xxiv) of Para – 11 of the Written statement of the defendant No. 2
are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the defendant No. 2 ever
visited the Applicant Bank after pasting the possession notice. It is the duty
of the defendant No. 2 to proof the said facts as stated in the said Sub-para.
It is specifically submitted that the defendant No. 2 for the purpose of making
wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank has alleged
several allegations to avoid to return back the outstanding dues in the loan
accounts.
31) With regards to
statements and allegations made in Sub-Para – (xxv) of Para – 11 of the Written
Statement the Applicant Bank submits that the Authorized Officer under the
provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 is duty bound to comply the same as per law as
laid down in the said Act and Rules. It is submitted that whatever acts done by
the Authorized Officer which have done according to the provisions of law.
32) That the statements made
in Sub-Para – (xxvi) of Para 11 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2
the Applicant Bank submits that the copy of 13(2) Notice and the Postal Track
Report have already annexed with the O.A and where from it reveals that the
said 13(2) Notice were duly been served upon the Defendants. It is a lie to say
that the Defendant No.2 did not receive the said Demand Notice under section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that after the expiry of statutory
period the Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank has taken the symbolic
possession of the secured asset and also pasted the same on the conspicuous
part of the secured asset. It is further submitted that the said possession
notice subsequently published on 10/11/2021 in 2 (Two) daily newspapers namely
“EKDIN” and in “FINANCIAL EXPRESS”. The copies of the said newspaper
publication the Applicant has filed the same.
33) With regards to the
statements made in Sub-Para – (xxvii) of Para 11 of the written statement of
the defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that it is not a fact that the
statutory notice under the provision of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act did
not serve upon the Applicant and also lie to say without serving the said
demand notice the Authorized Officer pasted the possession notice dated
05/11/2021 on the secured asset. It is submitted that there is no provision to
communicate about the NPA of the loan account of the borrowers by the
Authorized Officer of the bank time to time and as such the said plea taken by
the Defendant No. 2 in the instant para is after thought and not in accordance
with the law.
34) That the statements made
in Sub-Para – (xxviii) of Para 11 of the written statement of the Defendant No.
2 the Applicant Bank submits that the service proof of 13(2) Notice have
annexed with the Original Application. It is submitted that the Defendant No. 2
for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the
Applicant Bank has tried to deny the service of 13(2) Notice.
35) With regards to the
statements and allegations made in Sub-Para – (xxix) of Para 11 of the written statement
of the Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the Applicant Bank
nowhere stated that the Demand Notice dated 09/04/2021 ever been served but in
sub para- (xxviii) Para- 5 of the Original Application the Applicant Bank
categorically stated that the Demand Notice dated 02/07/2021 under section
13(2) was issued and the same have also annexed with the original application.
It is also a lie to say that the loan account of the Defendant was or is not
within the category of Non-performing Asset.
36) That the statements and
allegations made in Sub-Para – (xxx) of Para 11 of the Written Statement of the
Defendant No. 2 are not correct maliciously made for the purpose of this case
and the same are emphatically denied by the Applicant Bank. It is denied the
loan account of the Defendant is not under the category of Non-Performing Asset
or that the Applicant in collusion and connivances with its officers with
ulterior motive serve the possession notice dated 05/11/2021.
37) With regards to statements and
allegations made in Sub Para- (xxxi) of Para 11 of the Written Statement of the
Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the Authorized Officer of the
Applicant Bank has issued the Demand Notice dated 20/7/2021 under section 13(2)
of the SARFAESI Act upon the Defendant No.2 and the copy of the said demand
notice have already been annexed with the application along with Track Report
thereafter the Authorized Officer of the Applicant Bank has taken the symbolic possession
and pasted the possession notice on the conspicuous part of the Secured Asset
rightly on 05/11/2021.
38) With regards to
statements made in Sub Para- (xxxii) and (xxxiii) of Para 11 of the Written
Statements of the Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that in the common
judgement the Ld. Presiding Officer DRT- Siliguri has pleased to pass the
common judgement and order in S.A No. 26 of 2022 and S.A No.27 of 2022 on the
observation that the Applicant Bank without serving the possession notice has
issued the Possession Notice under Rule 8 (1). But in the present case has
filed by the Applicant Bank for recovery of outstanding dues till the date of
recovery and along with the said Original Application the Applicant Bank has filed
the Track Report for service of Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act. As such the present recovery proceeding is very much under the
provision of law and the reliefs prayed for in the present application maybe
granted in favour of the Applicant Bank.
39) With regards to the
statements and allegations made in Paras 12, 13 and 14 of the Written Statement
of the Defendant No. 2 the Applicant Bank submits that the question of
speculative, harassment, motivated and concocted and baseless claim made by the
Applicant Bank does not arise at all as the relief sought for in the instant
original application are on the basis of documents executed by the Defendants
and statement of accounts of the several loan accounts and the Defendant never
alleged that the Applicant Bank has no right to claim the outstanding dues in
the several loan accounts.It is denied that the original application is not
maintainable either in facts or in its present form or that the said plaint is
speculative, harassing, motivated, concocted and baseless or that is barred by
principle of law.
40) With regards to the
statements made in of Para 15 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2
the Applicant Bank submits that the denial made with regard to paragraphs 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5 of the original application are after thought for the purpose of
avoiding payment of the outstanding dues claimed by the Applicant Bank. It is
specifically denied that the allegations made by the Defendant that the M/S H.M
Enterprise was a creation of Bank officials. It is specifically submitted that
after availing of the sanction limit and after the lapse of several years the
Defendant No. 2 has raised and denied regarding the creation of partnership. It
is submitted that the provision of Section 69 of the Partnership Act is that
the unregistered partnership firm cannot sue to enforce a right arising from
the contract in any court of law by or on behalf of the Partnership Firm but
there is no bar to sue against the unregistered Partnership Firm for
realization of claim which is still outstanding in connection with the
aforesaid loan account. It is submitted that if a demand notice under Section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is set aside by Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal,
the Applicant Bank cannot file the original application under Section 19(2) of
the RDBFI Act, 1993. As already stated earlier that the Applicant Bank has
filed the copy of Demand Notice along with Track Report in the present Original
Application. It is submitted that in the SARFAESI proceeding and during the
course of passing final order in the SARFAESI proceeding, the Applicant Bank
could not produce the copy of Notice and/or Track Report. But in the instant
Original Application the Applicant Bank has annexed the Copy of 13(2) Notice
dated 02/07/2021 and the Track Report. It is specifically denied that the
Defendant never received any loan. It is submitted on perusing the documents it
reveals that the Defendant No. 2 has executed several documents in favour of
the Bank which have already annexed with the Original Application. It is again
submitted that the question of communication before declaration of NPA of any
loan account, there is no provision to intimate the defaulting borrower that
the loan account is going to declaration as NPA. Moreover, on receiving the
Demand Notice the Defendant did not submit any representation to the Authorized
Officer of the Applicant Bank.
41) With regards to the
statements made Para- 16 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2 it is
specifically denied by the Applicant Bank that the Applicant Bank cannot seek a
declaration against the borrower in the Original Application under Section 19
of RDBFI Act, 1993. In the instant proceeding the Applicant Bank has sought for
issuance of Certificate for recovery of the claim amount as specifically stated
in the Original Application. It is specifically stated that nowhere in the
relief portion of the original application, the Applicant Bank has sought for
declaratory relief (such as Declaring a person as a defaulter, determining the
right over property or any status related relief) The Applicant Bank in the
instant Original Application has sought for issuance of certificate on the
outstanding dues as claimed in Paragraph-6 of the Original Application.
42) With regards to the
statements made in Para- 17 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2 the
Applicant Bank submits that the Defendant No. 2 without perusing the case
records has alleged the allegation that without any authority the instant O.A has
filed by the Bank official. It is submitted that the Chief Manager of the
Applicant Bank has filed the above case on the basis of General Power of
Attorney which have already filed in the instant Application by the Applicant
Bank. The Defendant No. 2 has taken the said plea for the purpose of making
wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank.
43) With regards to the
statements made in Para 18 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2 are
not correct hence denied. It is denied that the relief sought for in the
original application under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act, 1993 are without
jurisdiction of the Ld. Tribunal.
44) That the statements and
allegations made in Para- 19 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2
are not correct hence denied. It is denied that the claim of the Applicant Bank
in the original application is based on the lawful claim, such claim has been
based on the lawful manner and it is submitted that the claim has been done in
the interest and charges are in accordance with the guideline of Reserve Bank
of India. It is specifically submitted that the Applicant Bank has filed the
Instant Original in clean hand.
45) That the statements and
allegations made in Para 20 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2 are
not correct hence denied. It is denied that the Original Application under the
RDBFI Act, 1993 is not sustainable. It is submitted that the said section 19 of
the RDBFI Act, 1993 does not arise as such the question of dismissal of the
Original Application does not arise at all.
46) That the statements made in
Paras 21 and 22 of the Written Statement of the Defendant No. 2 are not correct
hence denied. It is denied that there is no merit in the Original Application
or that the Defendant No. 2 will highly prejudice
if the above Original Application is not dismissed ,It is specifically
submitted that the Defendant No. 2 has taken the above pleas for the purpose of making wrongful gain by causing
wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank.
47) The Written Statement filed
by the Defendant No. 2 malafide for the purpose of making wrongful gain by
causing wrongful loss to the Applicant Bank.
48) That the Defendant No. 2 is
not entitled to get any relief or reliefs in terms of prayer made in Sub Para
(a) and (b) of Para-23 of the Written Statement and such the said prayer may be
dismissed with exemplary cost in favour of the Applicant Bank.
49) That in view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances the allegations made in the aforesaid Written
statements by the Defendant No. 2 are after thought and are made 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 Defendant is not entitled to get
any relief on the basis of her aforesaid Written Statement which are completely
suppressing the facts and taking several illegal allegations against the Applicant
Bank for the purpose of wrongful gain and as such the Rejoinder 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.
V
E R I F I C A T I O N
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 4 to 46 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.
A
F F I D A V I T
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.
3) That I am fully conversant with the facts of the case.
.............
This is true to my knowledge.
4) That the statements made in Paras 4 to 46 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 26th Day of
February, 2026 at Siliguri.
DECLARANT
IDENTIFIED BY
ME
ADVOCATE:
SILIGURI
No comments:
Post a Comment