INITIAL EXPLANATION TO BE SOUGHT FROM GTB

To call for following information from Global Trust Bank through Oriental Bank of Commerce

correspondence letter REFERENCE internet LINK:- http://www.gtbcore.blogspot.com

APPRAISAL AND SANCTION STAGE

1. GTB has not carried out any investigation at the time of appraisal by obtaining following documents.As a part of prudent and conservative practice while giving amount in crores of rupees , all the banks are would follow such practice because depositors have reposed trust in them. The fact that they have not carried out shows serious lapses on their part as well as the auditors of GTB inspecting all the necessary records.

GTB management would have made independent check with Registar of Companies at the time of appraisal while processing loan application for Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd , Flovin Plastics Private Ltd and Dhanysuhaya Financial Pvt Ltd and would have obtained certified copies from Registar of Companies showing particulars of all audited balance sheets (meaning till 31-3-1998) filed preceding the date of application of loan.They would have shown documentary evidence in form of receipt of Registar of Companies evidencing that they have carried out such inspection. They would have also obtained certified copies of audited balance sheet from the Registar of Companies at the time of processing of appraisal. THIS IS NOT DONE. (same can be verified once again).

GTB would have also addressed letter to the previous bankers and obtained complete details as to who are operating the account. (same can be verified once again).

GTB would have also addressed letter to the auditor of Rupmanglam and Flovin Plastics Private Ltd or asked the applicant to obtain from the auditors and obtained their report as to who who are the directors and as to who are the shareholders of such private limited companies. Such procedure has been was in practice even by Gujarat State Financial Corporation for an amount which was less than say Rs 20 lakhs.

GTB would have also carried out inspection of minute book record of directors and shareholders directly or would have asked the applicant to furnish certified copies of such records from the auditors of the companies involved.

GTB would have also inspected and obtained certified copies of audited balance sheet pertaining to Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd till March 31-3-1998 and the said balance sheet would have reflected particulars of its so called subsidiary companies called Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Private Ltd along with the audited balance sheets of these so called subsidiaries annexed with the audited balance sheet of Dhanysuhya Financial Pvt Ltd. IN FACT NO SUCH AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF DHANYSUHYA FINANCIAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH REGISTAR OF COMPANIES.

GTB would have ascertained from the audited balance sheet of Core Health care Ltd of 1997 that Core Health care had defaulted a large loan (American Express who hade filed winding up petition) and therefore would have been skeptical to extend such high term loan before carrying out a detailed and exhaustive inquiry.

GTB would have obtained history of companies called Rupmanglam and Flovin Plastics Private Ltd right from the inception of the companies especially when they would have found out that Jatin Jalundhwala and Ameet Desai were not original directors of these companies.

The fact that GTB has not carried out such detailed investigation is evident from the copy of title deeds registar maintained by them showing list of documents attached therein . Such copy of title deeds registar does not reflect certified copies of Form 32 showing appointment of Jatin Jalundhwala and Ameet Desai as directors of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd nor does it reflect forms showing alleged resignation of mody family directors.

GTB carried out partial inquiry only after they received a Private and confidentai letter from Pankaj Mody on 24-7-1999 as to when Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala and Mr. Ameet Desai had made appearance as additional directors by asking their solicitors WADIA GHANDY to carry out such inspection report at Registar of Companies and obtain certified copies from the Registar of Companies. Wadia Ghandy inspite of being solicitors have played dumb as to how Jatin Jalundhwala and Ameet Desai played their role as regular directors in 1998 especially when the role of additional directors gets over at the time of next annual general meeting as per the provisions of Companies Act and articles of association/memorandum of concerned companies. Mr. Jalundhwala and Mr. Ameet Desai cannot on their own to have themselves reappointed as additional directors or directors unless they have been formally invited by mody family members for reappointnment by mody family directors and mody family shareholders. BOTH JATIN JALUNDHWALA AND AMEET DESAI HAVE KEPT GTB IN DARK AND HAVE FOOLED GTB BANK ON THIS ISSUE. BESIDES GTB AS A BANKER CANNOT ABSOLVE THEMSELVES THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW ALL SUCH PRIMAEFACIE DETAILS OF COMPANIES ACT WHILE PROCESSING THE APPLICATION FOR TERM LOAN.

Assuming that GTB did not ascertain such facts at the time of appraisal ,GTB would have verifed minutely even at the time of RECEIPT OF Mr. Mody's letter on 24-7-1999 and they would have restrained themsselves from disclosing the content of SUCH private and confidential letter to the party which itself shows that they do not have any concern of safety of a WHISTLEBLOWER OF BANKING FRAUD.

Copy of title deeds registar maintained by GTB and handed over to the court commissioner on 10-1-2002 does not reflect documentary evidence of alleged resignation of mody family directors.

Dhanyushya has furnishsed sale deed document only for 19% share in the property while for the balance 81% property , copy of memoandum of entry furnished by GTB does not reflect deposition of original sale deed documents of Parbhulal Bhikhabbhai Shah being handed over by Rupmanglam and Flvoin to GTB for the purpose of creation of true charge on the immoveable property.

GTB very well knew from the record of right that there was stay of revenue department of Government of Gujarat at the time of creation of charge in 1998 and the annexures submitted at the time of renewal on March 1 ,1999 did not reflect that such stay was lifted and thereby priamefacie conclusion can be drawn that such permission was obtained as an afterthought by Dhanyushya.

GTB and Dhanysuhaya has not produced any sale deed document which shows that constructed portion exclusively belonging to Rupmanglam has been shown to be coowned by Dhanyushya and Flovin and nor have they been able to show relevant 37I permission from the income tax authorities. It is strange that the investigation department of income tax has not initiated legal steps against Jatin Jalundhwala inspite of such knowledge with them.

Inspite of the letter addressed to GTB on 24-7-1999 ,

-(i) GTB has failed to explain as to how Jatin Jalundhwala had power to create charge when Dhanyushya through their notice had confirmed presence of Mody family directors,

-(ii) GTB has failed to obtain auditors report through Dhanyushya that they are sole legal shareholders to pass necessary resolution for creation of charge as required by the Companies act as well as articles of association and memorandum

-(iii) GTB has failed to obtain auditors confirmation stating that Jatin Jalundhwala and Ameet Desai are sole directors of Rupmanglam and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd

-(iv) GTB and Dhanyushya has failed to furnish written affidavit from the ESCROW persons that they are holding legal ownership of the companies as well as legal title of ownership of the companies.

-(v) How can GTB register charge when they know fully well that Jalundhwala has accepted that he did not have minute book records which are necessary to pass necessary resolutions for creation of charge -(vi) GTB knew very well that Jalundhwala cannot accept alleged resignation of Mody family directors as long as he does not furnish documentary evidence which shows that he continues as director