IN THE MATTER
OF
M/s. ROSEBAY ORGANIC FOODS PVT. LTD.
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROSEBAY AGRO FARMS PVT. LTD.)
..........COMPLAINANT
AGAINST
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
BRANCH RAILA , DISTT. BHILWARA
&
THEIR OFFICIALS & OTHER COMPANIONS
Address:-
ROSEBAY ORGANIC FOODS PVT. LTD.
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROSEBAY AGRO FARMS PVT. LTD.)
4, VISHNU PATH, SATYA VIHAR, LAL KOTHI, JAIPUR-302015
Tel.No. 
0141-2741585 Cell No. +91-9414063537
0141-2741585 Cell No. +91-9414063537 For the reference to Annexures Click on the following links: 1-10, 11-17, 18, 19-25, 26-29, 30, 31-34, 35, 35 Complaint
Annexure ‘A’
To,
The Banking Ombudsman,
Place of BO’s office: JAIPUR
Dear Sir,
Sub: Complaint against
|
State Bank of India,
Branch- Raila, Bhilwara.
|
Details of the complaint are as under:
| |
1.Name of Complainant
|
ROSEBAY ORGANIC FOODS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROSEBAY AGRO FARMS PVT.LTD.)
|
2.Full Address of the Complainant
|
4, VISHNU PATH, SATYA VIHAR,
LAL KOTHI, JAIPUR
Pin code : 302015
Phone No.
0141-2741585
Email CEO@ROSEBAYORGANIC.COM
Cell.
9414063537 |
3. Complaint against :
PIN Code
Phone No./Fax No.
|
Phone:
01487-273125 Fax: 273674 PIN:311024 |
4. Particulars of Bank or Credit Card
Account (If any)
|
TL-1st A/c No. 11631532051, TL-2nd A/c No. 30564170193, TL-3rd A/c No. 30790086642, TL-4th A/c No. 30790105601 and CC Limit-1st A/c No. 11631517464, CC Limit-2nd A/c No. 30564558867, CC Limit-3rd A/c No. 30790238803
|
5. (a) Date of representation already
made by the complainant of the
Bank :
|
Representation
was made to the Chairman, S.B.I., Mumbai Complainant vide letter dated
31.05.2011. Photo Copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-35 .
|
6. (b) Whether any reminder was sent by the complainant ?
|
YES
Following were the reminders to the abovementioned complaint sent by the complainant:-
(i) Reminder vide letter dated 16.06. 2011. Photo Copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-1
(ii) E mail dated 08.07.2011 as Annexure-2
(iii) E mail dated 12.07.2011 as Annexure-3
(iv) Reminder vide letter dated 26.07. 2011. Photo Copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-4
(v) E mail dated 03.08.2011 as Annexure-5
(vi) E mail dated 10.08.2011 as Annexure-6
(vii) Reminder vide letter dated 16.01. 2012. Photo Copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-7
(viii) Reminder vide letter dated 28.01. 2012. Photo Copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-8
(ix) Reminder vide letter dated 06.02. 2012. Photo Copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-9
|
7. Details of Complaint:
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR
(A) Facts in brief of the case giving rise to the instant Complaint:
1. That
initially on 05.11.2007 a term loan of Rs. 57 lakh only and a C.C.
Limit of Rs. 3 lakh was sanctioned by ‘State Bank of India’, Branch
Raila, Bhilwara. (here-in-after referred to as the ‘Bank’) to the
Complainant for establishing and operating an ‘organic dairy farming
project’, at Raila. This project inter-alia necessitates nurturing of
cows in natural environment.
2. That
‘organic dairy farming project’, as aforementioned rationally and
logically qualifies as the agriculture sector, consequently attracting
benefits and exemption provided for ‘priority sector lending’. For this
reason alone charge u/s 6(a) of “The Rajasthan Agricultural Credit
Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1944,” was created by the Bank
on the agriculture land mortgaged in lieu of the loan on the organic
dairy project.
3.That
the Complainant utilized Rs. 33,10.200/- (Approx.) out of the above
sanctioned term loan of Rs. 57 lakh, that is to say, until and upto
6.9.2008, term loan of Rs. 33,10.200/- only (Approx.) out of the total
sanctioned terms loan of Rs 57 lakh only was disbursed.
4.That
the complainant applied for the enhancement of term loan & working
capital limited on plausible grounds in Feb 2008, that is to say, within
a very short span of ‘three months’, from the date of the first
sanction.
5.
That the ‘Bank’ delayed complainant’s application for enhancement of
loan, and the matter was not dealt-with, in accordance with the
established norms & guidelines of RBI. In other words, ‘Bank’ though
convinced squarely with the enhancement / revision application but the
unreasonable delay was caused by the Bank, and as is evident on the face
of record complainant’s application as aforementioned was unreasonably
kept in abeyance for no reasons whatsoever, for seven long months which
were of vital importance for the project at that early stage.
6. That finally on 06.09.2008 a
term loan of Rs. 88 lakhs over and above the T.L. of Rs. 33, 10,200/-
disbursed as mentioned above was further sanctioned to the Complainant
and simultaneously C.C. Limit of Rs 3 Lakhs was also enhanced to Rs 20
lakhs.
7. That
it is further pertinent to mention here that, the compliance of the
already delayed sanction pertaining to the enhancement application of
the loan, vide sanction note / letter of arrangement dated. 06.09.2008
was delayed further for more than two & half months by the ‘Bank’
and the disbursement was withheld unreasonably until Nov.2008.
8.That
inspite of the fact that Rs 33,10.200/-only out of the first sanctioned
term loan of Rs 57 lakh, was disbursed, the installments were not
rectified accordingly by the then Manager of the Raila Branch. In
other-words, though the loan of Rs. 33,10.200/- was disbursed
initially, but the installments were computed by the ‘Bank’, as if, the
entire loan of Rs 57 lacks was disbursed to the Complainant.
9.That
the Complainant’s repeated request to recompute and rectify the
installments in conformity with the term loan actually disbursed, were
ignored ruthlessly by the Branch Manager, SBI, Raila Branch.
10. That
it is apposite to note here that the project of the Complainant
financed by the ‘Bank’ was covered under the ambit of ‘priority sector
lending’, consequently attracting exempted rate of interest. But amazingly interest charged from the Complainant was at commercial rate which needs
to be compensated. We have learned from the reliable sources that in
the State of Punjab & other parts around the Country , the identical
projects were finance under ‘priority sector lending’ schemes. Whereas
the Complainant was mechanically deprived of the said facility by the
‘Bank’, without any plausible reason.
11. That
‘priority sector lending’, is also exempted from the routine processing
charges but said charges were unduly levied on the Complainant.
12.That
the continuous requests of the Complainant and the directions of the
Regional office of SBI to the Branch Raila, to correctly compute EMI,
were ignored repeatedly by the Branch Manager, who was inclined upon to
kill the project of the Complainant for the reasons best known to him.
13. That
when the repeated oral requests as aforementioned were not taken care
of, the Complainant vide their letter dated 06.11.2008 formally
requested the Branch Manager SBI Raila, in writing to recompute and
rectify the monthly installments pertaining to the above term loan in
conformity with amount actually disbursed by the ‘Bank’. (Photo copy of
the letter dated 06.11.2008 is enclosed herewith as Annexure- 10).
14. That
instead of recomputing and rectifying the monthly installments, Branch
Raila issued a letter dated 29.12.2008, making there-under observations
which has no context whatsoever of the issues actually in dispute.
Moreover the issues / facts stipulated in the said letter by the Branch
Manager, SBI, Raila are erroneous on the face of record.. (Photo copy of
the letter dated 29.12.2008 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-11). In fact he never visited the Complainant’s dairy on 25.12.2008 as has been stated in the said letter.
15. That
the Complainant replied the above letter dated 29.12.2008 vide their
letter 06.01.2009 and point-wise replied the issues raised by the Branch
Manager. (Photo copy enclosed herewith as Annexure- 12).
16.That inclined upon the torture / ruin the Complainant the Branch Manager, Raila without paying any head to the Complainant’s reply dated 06.01.2009, discontinued
the further disbursement of the loan amount already sanctioned without
rendering any reasoning and without any intimation in respect thereof.
17. That
this unreasoned and unlawful discontinuance of disbursement of
sanctioned loan amount to the Complainant without any notice was nothing
but the unlawful, violation of the very specific terms and conditions
of the Sanction Note. This act or omission whatsoever, of the ‘Bank’
beyond doubt tantamount to ‘criminal breach of trust’..
18. That
despite all the torment and discomfort from the Bank bonafide
Complainant in the hope of getting justice from the higher forums of the
Bank, continued the execution of the project at their own cost.
19.That
with the pious motive to resolve the issue amicably, the
Complainant visited the Branch Manager Shri K.L. Chouradia and the then
Chief Manager Agriculture Shri R.K. Nehra followed by a series of
visits to the office of A.G.M. Shri V.K. Lakhani. But shockingly amazed
to learn that Shri K.L. Chouradia and Shri R.K. Nehra bypassed and
violated the very specific and categorical orders of their superior..
20.That
on 17.03.2009, being aggrieved by the then Branch Manager SBI, Raila
and realizing the helplessness of Shri V.K. Lakhani, the
Complainant visited the office of Shri Rakesh Sharma the then General
Manager, Local Head Office, New Delhi,.
21. That
after hearing the Complainant, Shri Rakesh Sharma, on the spot deputed
Shri S.C. Verma the then C.M. Agriculture, to look personally into the
matter.
22. That
said Shri S.C. Verma in company of Shri R.K Nehra and Shri Sharaft
Hussain, inspected the Complainant’s organic dairy project, at Raila on
30th and 31st March, 2009.
23.That
in the follow up action, Shri S.C. Verma drafted a detailed note
incorporating observations made by him in the dairy and submitted report
in respect thereof to the D.G.M., where from it was forwarded to Shri
Rakesh Sharma G.M. New Delhi.
24.That
Shri S.C. Verma was thoroughly convinced about the viability and
feasibility of the project and was satisfied with all technical and
financial aspects and was also convinced that the Branch Manager, Raila
and C.M. Agriculture, Jaipur were erroneous on all counts.
25.That in April 2009 Shri S.C. Verma with the intend to compensate and to provide immediate relief to the Complainant proposed additional loan of about 16 lakhs odd., supported by advisory note, to
the concerned office at Jaipur. The Complainant were advised by him to
visit the offices of C.M. Agriculture Jaipur and A.G.M. Jaipur in
connection with the same.
26. That
despite continuous follow-up and a series of visits to the offices as
aforementioned, at Jaipur, they refused of having being received any
intimation / direction / note from the Local Head Office, New Delhi. On
the contrary they upraised the degree of harassment and by making
mockery of bonafide banking practice and norms, directed the Complainant
to submit fresh proposals of project in reference, for being reassessed
by those unleashed and unaccountable officers. It would not be out of
place to mention here that the project was already financed and the loan
was partially disbursed which was later on discontinued unlawfully,
exposing the Complainant to the financial crises injuries for the health
of the project.
27. That
during this entire period Shri Nehra and Shri Chouradia continued to
abuse the Complainant ominously threatening the Complainant to teach a
lesson for taking up the matter with L.H.O. New Delhi. Their language
was always been abusive to the extent that it cannot be reproduced on
papers.
28. That
instead of allowing the further sanction of Rs, 16 Lakhs as mentioned
above, Branch Manager Raila in collusion with the AGM, and Chief Manager
designed a conspiracy and intentionally committed mistakes in
calculations, resulting in disbursement of loan amount on the lower side
to the extent of 7 to 8 lacs of rupees, in comparison to the loan
amount already sanctioned. Total impact of short fall was 23 lakhs
(approx.). In other-words, instead of allowing additional loan of Rs, 16
lacks, they in collusion, reduced the loan amount.
29. That
thereafter on 12.05.2009 the Complainant through a fax message followed
by speed post on 13.05.2009, reported the entire instance to the
General Manager, New Delhi, requesting him to intervene and do the
needful for the restoration of bonafide banking practices. (Photo copy
of the letter dated 12.05.2009 & 13.05.2009 are enclosed herewith
as Annexure- 13 & 14).
30. That
in the evening of 12.05.2009, a phone call was received by the
Complainant from the office of Shri Nehra to collect an envelope from
his good office. In anticipation thereof staff of the Complainant
visited Shri Nehra’s office, and received a sealed envelope.
31. That
the said sealed envelop contained a letter issued vide S. No.
6/SK/21547 dated 10.05.2009 by Shri Nehra. (Photo copy of the letter
dated 10.05.2009 is enclosed herewith as Annexure- 15).
32.That 10.05.2009 i.e. the date of the issue of the letter aforementioned, being a Sunday was the bank holiday apparently corroborating beyond doubt that it was part and parcel of the conspiracy against the Complainant.
33. That
the procedural compliance sought for by Shri Nehra, from the
Complainant in the said letter dated 10.05.2009 is self speaking of the
fact that Regional office under the influence of or in collusion with
the Branch Manager at Raila has decided to ruin the Complainant. The
information sought for in the said letter was against the spirit of
recommendations of L.H.O. We were asked to furnished information’s, as if our loan is to be considered afresh. This was again the violation of the contracted conditions of the sanction note.
34. That
until 03.06.2009 no curative and restorative action were taken by
L.H.O. New Delhi and no relief whatsoever were extended to the
Complainant.
35. That
on 04.06.2009 the Complainant again addressed a letter to A.G.M. Jaipur
in expectation of resolution of the issues of grave concern, as
aforementioned. (Photo copy of the letter dated 04.06.2009 is enclosed
herewith as Annexure- 16).
36. That
the Complainant realized that they were wrong in hoping for a judicious
and amicable solution when they received letter dated 05.06.2009 from
the Branch Manager Shri Chouradia, stipulating "Rephasement of overdue
amount", of 1st Terms Loan & 2nd Term Loan”.
The expressions “overdue amount’ and ‘rephasement’, was mischievous and
was a plot of designed conspiracy against the Complainant. (Photo copy
of the letter dated 05.06.2009 is enclosed herewith as Annexure- 17).
37.
That from the statement of accounts it can be verified that, until
05.06.2009 no amount was over-due against the Complainant on account of
said term loans. It was (letter dated 05.06.2009) the byproduct of
designed and conspired, computation error by the Raila Branch, itself.
It is also important to note here that, before and until this
rephasement of so called overdue amount, the Complainant had not
received any letter of demand or settlement of account from the Branch.
38. That
above mentioned letter dated 05.06.2009 was conspired just to
calumniate and disparage the Complainant so as to obstruct and thwart
them from approaching any other banking institution for taking up of
their loan from SBI.
39. That apart from the series of the above “Unfair Trade Practices” of
the Bank, the Bank Manager, Shri K.L. Chouradia, with the sole motive
to defame the Complainant, planned a conspiracy to drag them into
unwarranted litigation. The gist of the events revealing the designed
conspiracy of the said Branch Manager of the “Bank” with the motive to
defame and harass the Complainant are reiterated here-in below :-
(a) That
‘organic dairy farming project’, of the Complainant financed by the
‘Bank’, rationally and logically qualifies as the agriculture sector.
(b) That
in anticipation of the security as afore-mention of ‘agriculture land’
solely for ‘agriculture loan, attracting priority sector landing, a form
prescribed to u/s 6(1) of, “The Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation
(Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974”, (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Act’), pertaining to the creation of charge on agriculture land in
favour of the ‘Bank’ was duly and properly executed by the
Complainant for being presented by the ‘Bank’ along-with the relevant
loan documents in the office of the Tehsildar, Banera ¼rglhynkj cSujk½ Village Raila, Distt. Bhilwara, for the creation of charge of the agriculture land in reference in favour of the Bank..
(c) That
the said Form of Declaration under 6(1) of the Act when forwarded to
Tehsildar Banera, by the ‘Bank’ to the concerned office they were
returned back with the remark for being submitted afresh by the ‘Bank’
on account of over-writings and cuttings in the documents and forms of the Bank.
(d) That the above fact may be corroborated from the extracts of the mutation register (ukekUrj.k jftLVj½ of the concerned Tehsil office which are reiterated here-in-below:-
ukek
vkt fnuakd 10-07-2009 ds gYdk iVokjh }kjk is’k fd;kA jguukek 7 ekg
iqjkuk ntZ gksus ls] dfVax ,aoe] okbZV L;kgh yxkus ls uke [kkfjt fd;k
tkrk gS] ,aoe vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS] fd vkt fnuakd jguukek djokdj u;s
fljs ls iqu % Hkjdj is’k djasA
fnuakd 10-7-2009”
(Photo copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-18 )
(e) That it is apposite and pertinent to note here that afore-mention cutting / over-writing (ukekUrj.k jftLVj)
was committed by the ‘Bank’, with the malafide intended in their
documents and forms etc. accompanying the form 6(1) of the Act and the
form 6(1) of the Complainant was with-held unreasonably with the
malafide intend for 7 months indicating beyond doubt a design of
conspiracy against the Complainant.
(f) That
no intimation whatsoever of the above instance and happening between
the Tehsil Office and the ‘Bank’ was rendered by the ‘Bank’ to the
Complainant. Almost every day someone from the Complainant office
visited the Branch for their routine work but no information has been
extended to them. In-fact the issue pertaining to the filing of appeal was concealed purposely from the Complainant.
(g) That Instead of rectifying his mistakes as suggested by the Learned Tehsildar in mutation register (ukekUrj.k jftLVj),
Branch Manager Mr. Chourdia with ulterior motives to defame and harass
filed an appeal before the court of Hon’ble A.D.M. Bhilwara making
submissions of the fact which are not only fictitious but are of the
nature of highest degree of malafide, arrogance and also defamatory in
nature
(h) That
the submissions made by the ‘Bank’, at Para (3) of the said appeal,
that the client is trying to sell the land under reference, is self
speaking, of his malafide, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
This fictitious allegation reveals beyond doubt that the Branch Manager
Mr. Chouradia personally envy the Complainant for the reasons best known
to him. The Complainant never tried to sell the land and the
submissions made by the Bank in respect thereof were made with malafide
intended only to defame the Complainant. The Branch Manager was least bothered about the interest of the Bank. He was inclined upon to defame the Complainant, which was his sole agenda.
(i) That
it is very important to mention here that appeal has been filed against
the instructions of the Learned Tehsildar to resubmit the fresh
mortgaged documents, that is to say, appeal has been filed against the
instructions given by Tehsildar for filing of fresh mortgaged document
which was not an appealable order. It is by now a very well settled
preposition of law that appeal should be filed against an appealable
order.
(j) That
instead of complying with the very logical and rational directions for
removal of defects, Branch Manager, Raila, amazingly preferred to file
an appeal that too illogically three in number (instead of one) with the sole motive to harass, defame and damage the image of the complainant.
(k) That the aforementioned appeal was devoid of any substance or merits.
(l) That in anticipation of the appeal as aforementioned three
notices in the News paper ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ in the Edition of
21.11.2010 were published whereupon this fact came to the notice of the
Complainant.
(m) That
immediately following the defamatory publication as aforementioned the
whimsical Branch Manager complied with the directions of Tehsildar and
charge in the property was created 24.12.2010. These directions would
have been complied with, at the very onset and no appeal and
consequently publication in news paper was warranted.
(n) That
after achieving his aims and objective to damage the Complainant
reputation the Bank suo-moto withdrew the appeal on next effective date
of hearing in the court, subsequently after publication of the
advertisement in the daily news paper and complying with the directions
of Tehsildar for filing fresh mortgaged deed, which would have been
complied, with the immediate effect by the Bank and litigation was not
warranted.
(o) That
aforementioned irresponsible action of malafide by Mr. Chouradia the
then Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Raila, was a designed
conspiring to injure the prestige of the complainant inter-alia exposing
them to the loss of business leading to financial losses.
40.That
the Complainant vide his letter dated 31.05.2011 addressed to the
Chairman SBI, Mumbai inter-alia brought to his notice the facts
aforementioned with a specific prayer to conduct an independent inquiry
without involving the local officers of the ‘Bank’ and L.H.O. New Delhi
(Photo copy of the letter dated 31.05.2011 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-35).
41. That
the Complainant’s above letter dated 31.05.2011, was forwarded by the
Chairman SBI, Mumbai, without even reading the specific prayer of the
Complainant to the Local Head Office, New Delhi.
42. That
to add to the irony Learned General Manager, L.H.O New Delhi conducted
meeting with the Complainant on 16.06.2011 at Jaipur right in the
presence of one of the officer of the Bank who was the prime accused in
the complaint dated 31.05.2011 viz., Shri V.K. Lakhani.
43.That
during the meeting as aforementioned, the Complainant and his counsels
exhaustively briefed General Manager SBI of the various issues of
discomfort with the SBI and inter-alia brought to his notice that after
their complaints on 12/13 May 2009, Shri V.K Lakhani asked him to report
in this Chamber.
44. That
when the Complainant paid visit to Shri. V.K Lakhani‘s office in May
2009, he along with Shri R.K. Nehra abused and threatened the
Complainant that even a complaint of their misdeeds, collusion and
corruption, to Chairman of the Bank would not bother them. They will be
safeguarded by their superiors. They are not even bothered about the
interest of their own bank, as a loss of meager amount of Rs 1.25 Cores
would least bother bank of the size of SBI. Instead the complaining
borrower would be ruined as they will do everything and anything to ruin
him, so much so he would not left in a shape and size to leave the Bank
and approach any other Bank for financial assistance. He would be
dragged to a situation which would compel him to commit suicide. They
promised to follow the Complainant till he reached the hell. The exact
version of what they have actually said in Hindi is reproduced
here-in-below:-
Jh y[kkuh usgjk] ;fn Chairman dks Complaint djksxs rks Hkh gekjk dqN ugh fcxMsxk gekjk gj cMk vQlj ges cpk;sxk rqEgkjh rjQ SBank dk 1@25 djksM Mwc x;k rks dksbZ QdZ ugh iMsxk A ysfdu rqeus gels iaxk fy;k gS vc ge lc rqEgkjk ihNk djsxsA u;k Loan ;k expansion rks Hkwy tkvks rqEgs nwljh cSd@czkap es tkus yk;d Hkh ugh aNksMsx]s o ;gWk bruh fo"ke ifjLfFkfr;Wk cuk nsx]s fd rqe u Project pyk
ikvksxs u can dj ikvksx]s rqEgkjk pSu ls thuk gjke dj nsxs] vUrira rqe
cckZn gks tkvksxs] izkstsDV cUn gks tk;sxkA rqe vkRegR;k djus dks etcwj
gks tkvksxs] vkSj ge rqEgkjh Assets dks cspdj iSlk olwy dj ysxsA vkSj vkt eq>s mudk dgk fcYdqy Bhd yx jgk gS fdrus nqjn’khZ gS vkids cSd vf?kdkjh fd 3 o"kZ igys gh] dEiuh ds izzkstsDV dks ekj nsus dh ?kks"k.kk dj nhA”
45. That
during the course of marathon hearing as aforementioned Learned General
Manager assured the Complainant of an early and effective action in the
matter. But amazingly nothing has been done, till date. Even worse was
yet waiting for the complainant.
46. That
a brief note of the complaint was simultaneously submitted vide our
letter dated 16.06.2011 to the Chairman, SBI during this visit to
Jaipur. (Please Ref. Annexure-1).
47. That
the subsequent action of the Bank also appears to be infected from the
virus of mal / corrupt practices. Though the fate of the compliant was
apparently pre-decided as was evident from the way the proceedings were
conducted. But in good-faith, Complainant waited patiently hoping
against all odds for a judicious action from the L.H.O New Delhi. The
norms of banking practices were being violated continuously even during
the period subsequent to the complaint dated 31.05.2011 by local
officers of ‘Bank’, who appears to be over and above the command of the
sovereign in this Bank. We have never come across such heart burning
experiences with any other instruction through out the globe.
48. That even after the Complaint dated 31.05.2011 Shri
K.L. Chouradia visited the complainant dairy for inspection on several
occasions without any pre-notice and without revealing his authority
with fearless cunning smiles on his face. During the said visit he
threatened to ruin our project, as if he himself is the Chairman of SBI.
His language was purely uncivilized and slang. He visited the
Complainant even, after the period when he was discharged as Bank
Manager, SBI Raila, with one agenda to abuse and harass.
49.That on 26.07.2011 a reminder to
the compliant dated 31.05.2011 was
sent to the General Manager (Network-III), SBI, L.H.O., New
Delhi (Please Ref. Annexure-4).
50. That thereafter the Complainant through e-mail and phone calls pleaded for an action in the matter.
51. That no action whatsoever was taken from the Bank to resolve the issue.
52. That
in September 2011 under the instruction from General Manager L.H.O New
Delhi, complainant submitted Project Report afresh to Deputy General
Manager, Jaipur, Shri Shailesh Verma.
53. That the matter was under discussion with the Deputy General Manager office until Nov. 2011
54.That
in consultation with the Deputy General Manager Office, complaint filed
an application dated 24.11.2011 delivered on 25.11.2011 requesting for
the transfer of their accounts from Raila Branch to Agriculture
Commercial Branch Jaipur, which they suppose was their due right (Photo
copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-19 ).
55. That
the said application dated 24.11.2011 was rejected malafide on account
of distance of 225 Km between Project site and Jaipur, amazingly, vide
letter dated 22.11.2011 (Photo copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-20).
56. That
it is pertinent to note that complainant application dated 24.11.2011
was replied by the Bank vide their letter bearing date 22.11.2011 clearly indicating premeditated and prejudice approach of the Bank.
57. That
it is pertinent to note that the pretext of the distance for the denial
of the request for the transfer of Branch was arbitrary, irrational,
unfounded, and erroneous on all count, because the Agriculture
Commercial Branch, Jaipur is meant to cater and provide services for
whole of the State of Rajasthan.
58.That
further to harass the Complainant, the Project report was unreasonably
sent for vetting to New Delhi, which was not required as the Agriculture
Commercial Branch, Jaipur, was competent to undertake the said process.
This step was taken to cause un-necessary delay and hardship to the
complainant.
59.That
though it was very categorically requested not to involve Shri K.L
Chouradia and others offending officers, the A.G.M Agriculture
Commercial Branch Jaipur viz. Surender Farakkya visited the Complainant
Dairy on 2nd Dec 2011 with Shri K.L. Chouradia under the
pretext of inspection. Shri K.L. Chouradia continued his derogatory and
abusive conduct during his visit on the said date, causing Complainant
grave mental pain and agony.
60. The complainant registered their resentment on the issue vide their letter dated 08.12.2011. (Photo copy enclosed as Annexure-21).
61. That reply of the Bank vide their letter no. ACB/no.SL/163 Dated 10.12.11 (Photo copy enclosed as Annexure 21A)
in respect thereof was merely an eyewash.. Though orally they continued
to abuse and threaten the complaint followed by various plots to
harassment, but on paper they pretended to resolve the issue.
62.That
contents of the subsequent letter dated 24.01.2012 are self speaking of
the facts, which amazingly take reference of the letter dated 13.12.2012 and 16.12.2012 which are the dates yet to come, and more importantly the information sought for therein was already their in the Project Report itself. (Photo copy enclosed as Annexure-22).
63. That
in the mean time the Complainant through their letter 16.01.2012
finally called upon the Chairman, SBI Mumbai, to take an action within
the stipulated time limit or they may be compelled to proceed against
the Bank before the forum of competent jurisdiction for seeking
appropriate relief in the matter. (Please refer Annexure-7).
64.That
story of the letter dated 24.01.2012 was again repeated by the Bank in
their letter dated 13.02.2012 and 20.02.2012 that is say, taking
reference of the letter pertaining to the dates yet to come and seeking
for the information already appraised with. (Photo copies enclosed as Annexure-23 & 24).
65. That the Complainant vide
their letters dated 28.01.12 and 06.02.12 categorically intimated the
Bank that they finally surrender being unable to withstand their
vindictive vigor and decided to close the project finally, as that they
are not in a position to feed and safeguard the live stock (Cows)
pledged as security with the ‘Bank’. Thus an immediate action is
warrant to taken in respect thereof or the Complainant reserves their
rights to mitigate the losses and do the needful without any further
reference to the ‘Bank’. (Please Ref. Annexure- 8 & 9).
66. That
left with no option the complainant through their counsel served a
notice to the Chairman, SBI Mumbai and his companions on 18.02.2012.
(Photo Copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-25).
67.That
despite repeated request and reminders to take charge and possession of
the live stock Cows, no one from the Bank appeared to take charge and
responsibility of the live stock (Cows), the complainant with no other
option left with them, were compelled to make the sale in distress and
incur undue losses.
68.That the
basic guiding force which compelled the complainant to sell the Cows
in distress at a very low price and even on credit as also for
consideration other than cash, was the financial hardship inflicted upon
them by the Bank. Complaint was not in the position to feed the cows
and the death in starvation of a single cow would have attracted country
vide agitation and political intervention. Thus the entire sets of
events reveal beyond doubt the fact that, the Bank was not sincere even
on this very sensitive issue.
69. That
instead of taking the charge of the live stock which was their
professional obligation in the events of resolving the issue amicably,
the Bank issued the complainant two notices dated 06.03.2012 and
22.03.2012, respectively. Photo copy enclosed herewith as Annexure-26 & 27 respectively.
70. That
the above notices which were based on the vague and camouflaged
hypothesis were replied by us though our letter dated 04.04.2012 and
13.04.2012 respectively. Photo copy enclosed herewith as Annexure 28 & 29 respectively.
71. That
the loan amount of Rs, 1.04 crore (approx.) was extended by the Bank to
the Borrower, (As per the Bank’s own statement). In lieu of the
security for the said loan charge was created on the under mentioned
properties:-
Dated
|
Valuer Name & Address
|
Particulars of Assets
|
Valuation in Rs,
| |
1
|
31.01.2009
|
New Vastukriti
Seema Gupta
311, IIIrd Floor, Pink City Tower, Pital Factory, Jhotwara Road Jaipur- Tel No.
0141-2300473 , Mob, 94143362584 |
Cow Shed + Building + Water Tanks + GLRV+Godown + Well + Tube Wells
|
1,25,33,000/-
|
2
|
28.12.2009
|
Er, Arun Kumar Bomb
5-Jha-32 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur-302004 Tel. No.
0141-2650174 , 2653349 |
Land Rosebay
|
1,42,40,000/-
|
Further
in anticipation of the preplanned expansion of the project consequently
warranting enhancement of loan which was never allowed the charge was
created on the property described as under:-
Dated
|
Valuer Name & Address
|
Particulars of Assets
|
Valuation in Rs,
| |
1
|
28.12.2009
|
Er, Arun Kumar Bomb
5-Jha-32 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur-302004 Tel. No.
0141-2650174 , 2653349 |
Land 259 Bigha 16 Biswa at Raila
|
8,54,77,500/-
|
73.
That the applications pertaining to Region-2, SBI, Jaipur was
transferred to Region-3 vide letter no. AOJ/R-2/202 dated 21.04.2012
(Photo copy enclosed as Annexure 31.)
74. That subsequently all the six applications dated 17th April
2012 were rejected unlawfully and erroneously by the Region-3, SBI,
Udaipur, vide their letter no. RBO/R-3/INSD/14/704 dated 03.05.2012. (The Photo copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure 32.)
No comments:
Post a Comment