IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Extraordinary Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
Writ Petition (C) No. 15911 of 2006
IN THE MATTER OF:
G.D. Gupta Petitioner
Versus
Syndicate Bank & Anr. Respondents
INDEX
Sl. No. Particulars Page No. Court Fees
1. Written Submissions on behalf of the 1-2
Petitioner
New Delhi
Date: 03-06-2024
ABHIGYA KUSHWAH
Advocate
FOR
ABHIGYA KUSHWAH & CO.
Advocates for the Petitioner
Chamber No. 94, A.K. Sen Block
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi-110001
Ph.: 9711026330
Email: [email protected]
1
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Extraordinary Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
Writ Petition (C) No. 15911 of 2006
IN THE MATTER OF:
G.D. Gupta Petitioner
Versus
Syndicate Bank & Anr. Respondents
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. The allegation is regarding the transaction of 1985 and the Charge-Memo is of 2001. The
Charge Memo is issued after the gap of around 16 years during which period, regular
financial inspections, audits, etc. were undertaken and no such lapse came in the limelight.
The Petitioner was transferred from Brijghat Branch in 1987. Even during 14 years after his
transfer, nothing came up but suddenly in 2001, the Respondents come with the said charges
and that too when his promotion was due. He was informed about the same during his
promotion interview.
2. (Pg.17) No Enquiry was conducted on the charges-also mentioned in the order founding him
guilty.
3. Broadly, two allegations are set out against the Petitioner by the Respondents:
o Wrongly approving/disbursing/releasing the loan amount of ₹84,000/- against the
security of mortgage of land
o Causing loss to the Bank by disbursing/releasing the said loan
• The Petitioner committed no error while approving/disbursing/releasing the loan amount
on account of the following:
Ø Legal Opinion and title search was duly sought from the Legal Advisors and as per
norms and rules of the Bank for mortgage loans. And the Rural Development Officer
(RDO) of the bank gave his report after visiting and inspectin the land. The legal
opinion and title search report given by the empanelled lawyer of the bank
categorically stated that “…the title of the borrowers is clear, perfect and marketable.
They have mortgageable rights.” In fact, the mortgage deed was drafted, executed
and registered by the same lawyer/legal advisor empanelled by the bank, who also
approved the PoA and stated it to be a valid one. (Pg. 35)
Ø Three co-borrowers – Sh. Baljinder Singh, Sh. Karam Singh and Sh. Sukhdev Singh-
were real brothers of each other. Sh. Karam Singh was the PoA holder of his real
brother Sh. Sukhdev Singh. The issue only in relation to the sanctioning of loan in
favour of Sh. Sukhdev Singh on the basis of PoA (originally in Urdu) which clearly
spells out that all acts and deeds on behalf of Sh. Sukhdev Singh are to be done by
his PoA Sh. Karam Singh. (Pg. 33)
Ø If the property of any person is mortgaged and money borrowed on the said mortgage,
without his consent or authority, then he/she shall raise an objection before the
authority. In the present case, neither Sh. Sukhdev Singh nor Sh. Karam Singh ever
raised the point of PoA qua the sanction of loan.
Ø Securities against the said land:
ü Tractor insured in favour of the Bank and also hypothecated
ü Agricultural Land worth ₹20.20 Lacs then
ü Two guarantors-Baldeo Singh and Pyara Singh-rich farmers of the area
ü Bank Balance of around ₹1,04,000/-
• No loss caused to the Bank by disbursing/releasing the said loan on account of the
following:
Ø There is no loss caused to the bank since in a suit filed for recovery, the Suit of the
bank has been duly decreed in bank’s favour. In the light of the above, the Decree
2
2
dated 06-04-2004 passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Hapur in the Suit preferred by the bank
against the said beneficiaries for the recovery of the said amount. (Pg. 59)
Ø Hence, after the said decree, no such allegation survives with the bank and the charge
on this count ought to have been revoked the penalty qua the said charge
4. (Pg.31) The Charge-Memo was issued against the Petitioner just because till the time, when
the suit was pending before the Court, the bank was unable to recover the money from the
borrowers that too during the pendency of the Civil Suit before the Civil Court, Hapur. This
clearly show that the bank never had faith on the Judicial System and the Court case which
they had initiated vide recovery suit which was pending adjudication during the period when
the said Disciplinary Proceedings and the Appeals were initiated and completed and decided
against the Petitioner.
5. If on such reasons the charge-memo get started being issued to the employees of the bank
and that too when there is a positive legal opinion for the approval/sanction /disbursal/release
of the loan and also when all the necessary precautions are taken by an employee, then the
bank employees will always refrain from approving any loan application as no one would
like to loose his/her job just on this count.
6. (Pg.71) In response to the representation of the Petitioner to the Respondent for revocation
of the penalty order against him, Respondent stated that “the court order dated 06-04-2004
was passed ex-parte and issue of validity of mortgage has neither been dealt with in the said
judgment nor is held proved.” But the Respondent forgot that the said judgment was not
against the Petitioner but against the borrowers. When the said suit has been decreed, in any
manner whatsoever, then in no case the Respondent can say that it’s just an ex-parte decree.
Ex-Parte Decree is also a full fledged decree in law and cannot be disregarded in any manner
whatsoever. It is pertinent to mention that the said civil suit filed on the basis of the legal
opinion stating that “Mortgage is available and the bank may file its suit on the basis of the
Mortgage and may recover its amounts.” On one hand the Respondents initiate the Civil Suit
and contest the same on the basis of the valid mortgage and on the other hand, they are
punishing the Petitioner stating it to be an invalid mortgage. Such action is bad in law.
7. If the stand of the Respondent is taken to be correct before this Hon’ble Court or in the
Disciplinary Proceedings and Appellate Authority and if the same were hidden by the
Respondent before the Ld. Civil Judge, then that either amounts to prosecution of the
Respondent u/s 340 CrPC for hiding he said information from the Court on Oath, keeping
the Court in dark about the said fact or it clearly indicates that Respondent do not find any
perversity in the said PoA and the whole of the proceedings against the Petitioner are with
mala-fide motive with the intention to harass him for the reasons best known to the
Respondent.
8. Had there been any defect in the PoA, then the Ld. Civil Judge would not have passed the
decree in favour of the Respondent on the ground of negligence of the Bank and even
otherwise, would have made some observation regarding the same in the Judgment, but
nothing of this sort has been mentioned in the Judgment. The said decree has been passed
only after verifying all the documents including PoA. On the basis of finding all the
documents in place and nothing wrong with the documents of the Respondent, including the
PoA and accordingly the said decree was passed.
New Delhi
Date: 03-06-2024
ABHIGYA KUSHWAH
Advocate
FOR
ABHIGYA KUSHWAH & CO.
Advocates for the Petitioner
Chamber No. 94, A.K. Sen Block
Supreme Court of India. New Delhi-110001
Ph.: 9711026330
Email: [email protected]
