conducting Inquiry in the matter

common letter to Handas and Jalundhwala dated 16-3-2005

2005-03-16T07:02:00.000-08:00

Inspite of the following letter sent out to them on 16th March 2005 , they failed to atttend the court 15 of the Metropolitan court on 18th March 2005. In fact no one attends the courts from their side including their advocate Kiram Bhrambhatt.

From : Pankaj S Mody 40 BMM SOCIETY
PALDI ,
AHMEDABAD 380006
modyps@gmail.com

psmody@yahoo.com

16th March 2005,

1. Mr. Sushil Handa
Near Judges Bunglows, BODAKDEV
AHMEDABAD
2. Mrs. Beena Handa
Near Judges Bunglows, Bodakdev
Ahmedabad
3. Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala
602 Satkrut, Parthsarthy Avenue, Nr. Shymal Row House , 132 Ring Road, Satellite Road , Ahmedabad

Sir,

1. You are the directors of Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd and you are aware that the undersigned has filed civil suit 5827/2001 in the City Civil Court of Ahmedabad against Dhanyushaya Financial , Jatin Jalundhwala , Core Healthcare Ltd and Global Trust Bank. Dhanyushya Financial , Jatin Jalundhwala , Core Health care has filed affidavit in the city civil court during the proceedings in the above referred matter narrating the contents of Memorandum of understandings where in the presence of escrow persons (namely Mr. Saurabh Soparkar and Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh is referred) and copy of the mous bearing signature of Jatin Jalundhwala is adduced to the city civil court.

2. At your instance , Core Health care Ltd has filed criminal defamation case 3326/99 in the Metropolitan Court of Ahmedabad against the undersigned. Till date no one has been attending the matter in the court from your side showing which clearly demonstrates that charge created by Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala on the immoveable property of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd is fraudulent . This shows deliberate attempt on your side to harass me and you do not have any case against the undersigned . You are called upon to attend the Metropolitan Court ( on 18th March 2005 ) along with the concerned/connected officials of GTB as your sahids failing which it would be construed that the management of Core Healthcare had filed a false criminal defamation against the undersigned with sole motive to harass me and I would be at liberty to recover damages from you by taking appropriate legal action against you for causing harassment. .

3. In light of present request letter addressed to you, you are called upon to furnish the following :-

Documentary joint written affidavit from Mr Saurabh Soparkar and Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh ( who have been referred as escrow persons in tthe copies of MOUS furnished by Dhanyushya to Chamber Court ) , as to their written confirmation that they ( Mr. Kashiparekh and Mr. Soparkar) have simultaneously handed over the documents of various documents from all the family members of Mody family including the undersigned.Till date , you have not given reply to my reply given through my advocate Shri K V Shelat pursuant to notice by Dhanyushya to me and other mody family members.

Documentary evidence in form of audited balance sheets along with written affidavit from auditor of Dhanyushya (M/s Shah and Shah Associates ) that stamped transfer deeds along with share certificates belonging to all mody family members have been presented by Dhanyushya to the legal board of directors of Rupmangalam within two months of validity period of transfer deeds while simultaneously adducing minute book records of directors and shareholders of Rupmanglam and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd and simultaneously confirmed by the auditors (Kashiparekhs) of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd.

You shall obtain necessary written affidavit from the auditors of Rupmangalam and Flovin that they have fully verified the documentary evidences and compliances of articles of association and memorandum for legal transfer of shares to Dhanyushya Financial that Dhanyushya is sole legal shareholder of both these companies.

You shall also obtain written affidavit from the auditors (Kashiparekhs) of Rupmanglam and Flovin as regards to how they came to know of so called shift of registered office of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd

You shall also obtain written affidavit from the auditors (Kashiparekhs) of Rupmangalam and Flovin as to on what supporting documentary evidences they have considered that Ameet Desai and Jatin Jalundhwala to be the sole directors of Rupmangalam Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd to the exclusion of Mody family directors.

You shall also adduce all necessary documentary evidences from Mrs Swati Soparkar, practicing in Gujarat High Court as regards to who has approached her for filing documents for amalagmating Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd and Flovin Plastics Private Ltd with Span Medicals by approaching Gujarat High court and how she has verified the authenticity before filing the matter to Gujarat High Court.

In case you fail to give a satisfactory reply then , all of you have in collusion with each other has created fraudulently created charge on the immoevable property of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd so as to obtain term loan of Rs 12.5 crores from Global Trust Bank for funding Core Healthcare.

4. It is also your responsibility to call for sahids from Global Trust Bank ( now Oriental Bank of Commerce) in the criminal defamation case 3326/99 filed against the undersigned to establish legal charge created by Global Trust Bank and it is obligatory on your part to produce the concerned officials of GTB in the Metropolitan court in defamation case against the undersigned.

In case , Oriental Bank of Commerce fails to produce all the concerned officers of GTB, it is your responsibility to file criminal case against Oriental Bank of Commerce for causing any damage to my legal rights during pendency of city civil suit 5827/2001 in City Civil Court of Ahmedabad.

5. You are called upon to furnish your detailed reply to the undersigned by email to me forthwith . The copy of this letter is being sent to SEBI and other agencies for further detailed investigation as I also happen to be share holder of Core Health care Ltd.

6. I reserve my right to call for additional information , clarification , comments , etc as and when needed from all of you at a later date.

Yours sincerely,

Pankaj S Mody

PHASE I FOR CONDUCTING INVESTIGATION BY SENDING LETTERS

2004-10-25T18:10:00.000-07:00

1. Draft of letter to Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/draft-of-query-letter-to-mr-hemant.html

2. Draft of letter to Saurabh Soparkar

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/draft-of-query-letter-to-mr-soparkar.html

3. Draft of Letter to GTB /OBC

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/initial-explanation-to-be-sought-from.html

4. Draft of letter to Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/draft-of-query-letter-to-mr-jatin.html

5. To call for detailed explanation from the Lordship of Gujarat High Court arbitary and brief orders under appeal from order 176/2003 and civil application 3110/2003 even when no one represented GTB, Core Health Care and Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd.

http://afo176.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_afo176_archive.html

6. Letter to Institute of Chartered accountants of India

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/draft-of-query-letter-to-institute-of.html

7. Draft letter to Bar Council of Gujarat

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/10/draft-of-inquiry-letter-to-bar-council.html

8. Query letter to Reserve Bank ofIndiaEmail sent to Reserve Bank of India on 7-8-2004

http://reservebankofindiaongtb.blogspot.com/2004/09/e-mail-sent-on-7-8-2004-to-rbi.html

Email sent to RBI on 16-9-2004

http://reservebankofindiaongtb.blogspot.com/http://reservebankofindiaongtb.blogspot.com/2004/09/e-mail-sent-on-16-9-2004-to-rbi.html

9. Query letter to Central Vigilance Commission. In reference to
My complaint letter dated 3-6-2002 to CVC as referred in the archives in form of link as under:-

http://www.intad.blogspot.com

10. Copy of email sent to Mr. Hamukh Adhia , Principal Secretary is shown in the link :

http://hasmukhadhia.blogspot.com/

His e mail address is http://us.f84.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=hasmukha@gujarat.gov.in

PHASE I FOR CONDUCTING INVESTIGATION BY SENDING LETTERS

2004-10-24T17:55:00.000-07:00

1. Draft of letter to Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/draft-of-query-letter-to-mr-hemant.html

2. Draft of letter to Saurabh Soparkar

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/draft-of-query-letter-to-mr-soparkar.html

3. Draft of Letter to GTB /OBC

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/initial-explanation-to-be-sought-from.html

4. Draft of letter to Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/draft-of-query-letter-to-mr-jatin.html

5. To call for detailed explanation from the Lordship of Gujarat High Court arbitary and brief orders under appeal from order 176/2003 and civil application 3110/2003 even when no one represented GTB, Core Health Care and Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd

.http://afo176.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_afo176_archive.html

6. Letter to Institute of Chartered accountants of India

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/draft-of-query-letter-to-institute-of.html

7. Draft letter to Bar Council of Gujara

thttp://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/10/draft-of-inquiry-letter-to-bar-council.html

8. Query letter to Reserve Bank ofIndiaEmail sent to Reserve Bank of India on 7-8-2004

http://reservebankofindiaongtb.blogspot.com/2004/09/e-mail-sent-on-7-8-2004-to-rbi.html

Email sent to RBI on 16-9-2004

http://reservebankofindiaongtb.blogspot.com/http://reservebankofindiaongtb.blogspot.com/2004/09/e-mail-sent-on-16-9-2004-to-rbi.html

9. Query letter to Central Vigilance Commission. In reference to
My complaint letter dated 3-6-2002 to CVC as referred in the archives in form of link as under:-

http://www.intad.blogspot.com

10. Copy of email sent to Mr. Hamukh Adhia , Principal Secretary is shown in the link :

http://hasmukhadhia.blogspot.com/

His e mail address is hasmukha@gujarat.gov.in

Saurabh Soparkar representing Core health care in 1998

2004-10-23T05:34:00.000-07:00

CIVIL APPLICATION No 106 of 1997

inO.J.APPEALNo 55 of 1997

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD.VersusCORE HEALTH CARE LIMITED--------------------

Appearance:SINGHI & BUCH ASSO. for applicant

MR SN SOPARKAR for the respondent--------------------------------------------------------------CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT andMR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH

Date of Order: 18/02/98

ORAL ORDER (Per Y.B. Bhatt J.)

1. We have heard the learned counsel for therespective parties. The present application is forinterim reliefs pending the final disposal of the aboveappeal, as per the separate and distinct prayers made inthe present application. For the purpose of deciding thepresent application, we are inclined to consider theprayers made herein, both separately as alsocumulatively, inasmuch as any order we may pass on thebasis of these prayers would to some extent have anoverlapping effect. For the purpose of deciding thepresent application we have kept in mind the basic andfundamental principles as regards the grant of interimrelief in any matter involving civil rights viz. whetherthe applicant has made out a prima facie case, in whosefavour does the balance of convenience lie, and whetherthe applicant would suffer irreparable injury in casesuch interim relief is refused.

2. Before going to the merits of the specificreliefs sought in the present application, we may onlyhighlight certain basic facts which are either undisputedor undisputable.

3. The applicant petitioning creditor had filed thewinding up petition against the respondent company on theground that the respondent company was unable to pay itsdebts, which as of today, admittedly amounts to aboutRs.17.5 crores inclusive of interest. Admittedly theoriginal transaction under which the respondent companyincurred the aforesaid debt was a loan of Rs.50 crores,which has been partly paid up. The aforesaid loan wastaken by creating a security in favour of the applicantpetitioning creditor of approximately Rs.55 crores atthat point of time. As urged by the counsel for theapplicant, we may assume that the security standsdiminished by passage of time, inasmuch as the same isonly against the specified movable property of thecompany, which may have deteriorated in value due topassage of time and/or due to the use to which it was putby the respondent company. In any case, it is on recordthat the present market value of the plant and machinery,which is secured with the applicant-appellant is Rs.31crores. It is, therefore, obvious that the security farexceeds the amount of the current debt in respect ofwhich the appellant has filed the winding up petition.

4. It is also an admitted fact that after theapplicant-appellant filed the winding up petition, duringthe pendency thereof, and before the same came to bedismissed by the learned Company Judge under the impugnedorder, this very same applicant-appellant had taken outproceedings before the appropriate Tribunal underRecovery of Dues due to Banks and Financial InstitutionsAct, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Debt RecoveryTribunal). Having obtained an exparte ad interiminjunction restraining the respondent company, it appearsthat no concrete action was taken for pursuing thewinding up petition, and the latter came to be pressedonly after the Debt Recovery Tribunal vacated the blanketinjunction (after hearing the respondent company).

5. The fact situation remains that theapplicant-appellant is amply secured, in respect of theexisting debt, as per the most recent valuation recordedin the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

6. It is also not in dispute or disputable that, onan approximation the total assets of the respondentcompany are worth about Rs.1000/- crores, that aconsortium of financial institutions have agreed torescheduling of the debts due to them of approximatelyRs.800/- crores, and that not a single secured orunsecured creditor has filed a winding up petitionagainst the respondent company except the presentapplicant-appellant. These facts are strongly resortedto by learned counsel for the respondent to support hiscontention that the very purpose of filing the winding uppetition by the applicant petitioning creditor is tobring undue pressure, inasmuch as theapplicant-petitioning creditor, although it is a securedcreditor, has nothing to gain and much to lose in theevent of the company being ordered to be wound up,inasmuch as the applicant-appellant would then lose itssecurity, and would stand in line with other unsecuredcreditors for prorata distribution of the assets of thecompany as and when realised. Without going deeper intothese submissions of learned counsel for the respondent,suffice it to say that the same are not entirely withoutsubstance, particularly when we take into account thefact that the very same applicant has resorted to thealternative remedy of filing proceedings before the DebtRecovery Tribunal.

7. We shall now deal with the prayers made in thepresent application.

7.1 At the outset we may state that the learnedcounsel for the applicant-appellant fairly conceded thatprayer (C) in the application, to appoint a provisionalliquidator during the pendency of the present appeal, isnot a prayer which he could legitimately press for. Thisprayer i.e. Prayer (C) is, therefore, rejected.

7.2 Prayers (B) and (D) may be considered togetherinasmuch as the same may have a certain overlappingeffect. Prayer (B) seeks to stay the operation andimplementation of the impugned order i.e. the orderwhereby the winding up petition is dismissed at theadmission stage. Prayer (D) seeks an injunctionrestraining the respondent company from dealing with,alienating, transferring or in any manner creating athird party interest in the properties of the opponentcompany without express permission of this court. It isboth implied and expressly stated by counsel for theapplicant that by the phrase "properties of the opponentcompany" would mean and include all possible kinds ofproperties, including fixed assets and/or other propertyincluding incorporeal rights. The only exception he madein the context of this prayer was that day-to-daytransactions in the normal course of business may beexcluded.7.3 In the context of the two prayers pressed for, wecan only observe that, in our opinion, the same, ifgranted even to a limited extent and/or withqualifications, would lead to much confusion andunnecessary complication, and would give rise to furtherlitigation and/or proceedings, while conferring no realadvantage or security to the applicant. On the otherhand, there are strong reasons, in our opinion, forrefusing to grant either of the two prayers, on merits,apart from the reason that no substantial prejudice wouldbe caused to the applicant if the same are not granted.

7.4 Firstly, if any stay were granted with or withoutmodification against the implementation and operation ofthe impugned order, viz. the order rejecting the windingup petition, the same would lead to considerable chaosand confusion. If the impugned order rejecting thewinding up petition at the admission stage were stayed,it could be urged, professed, contended, or representedby the applicant-appellant that, in law, the winding uppetition continues to exist and that the same must betreated as pending. We are not expressing any opinion asto whether such would or would not be the effect of thestay. We are only considering the fact that it may beopen to the applicant-appellant to so urge, not onlybefore the learned Company Judge, not only before otherfinancial institutions, but also before the entirebusiness community and the commercial world. This wouldhave a serious impact, and obviously an adverse impact,on the ongoing, pending and future decisions of theConsortium which is dealing with the respondent companyas regards reschedulement of a total debt ofRs.800/-crores. Furthermore, even to impliedly treat thewinding up petition as pending, is likely to give rise tomany cognate and or ancillary proceedings inasmuch asvarious provisions of the Companies Act would then applyto the respondent company, which would not otherwiseapply if a winding up petition had not been filed or wasnot pending. Thus, the indirect effect of staying theimpugned order would amount to giving a positive effectto, and/or partly accepting the contentions raised in thepresent appeal, before deciding the appeal on merits.

8. We have herein only indicated the highlights andsummarised in brief our line of reasoning as to whyneither of the prayers (B) or (D) can be granted, withoutgoing into a detailed discussion of the respectivesubmissions of the parties in this regard.9. For the reasons indicated briefly by ushereinabove, prayers (B) and (D) are also rejected.10. Consequently, this application as a whole isrejected and the same is accordingly disposed of with noorder as to costs.18.02.1998

[Y.B. BHATT J.][C.K. BUCH J.]

===============

CIVIL APPLICATION No 106 of 1997

inO.J.APPEALNo 55 of 1997--------------------------------------------------------------AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD.VersusCORE HEALTH CARE LIMITED--------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:SINGHI & BUCH ASSO. for Applicant--------------------------------------------------------------CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT andMR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH

Date of Order: 06/03/98ORDER ON NOTE DT. 2.3.98Per: Y.B. Bhatt, J.

1. This note has been filed for speaking to minutesby the applicant in Civil Application No. 106/97, in thecontext of our order passed in the said Civil Applicationdated 18th February, 1998. We have heard learned counselfor the respective parties in the context of thesubmissions made in the said note, and the consequentialrequest.

2. As a result of the hearing, we direct that thefollowing phrase shall stand deleted from para 4 of thesaid order."and the latter came to be pressed only after theDebt Recovery Tribunal vacated the blanketinjunction ( after hearing the respondentcompany)."

3. We may clarify that the said deletion is madeonly because counsel for the opponent has expressed hisview that he does not object to this deletion, and notfor any other reason whatsoever. In this context, we mayemphasize that the said deletion is made not because itaffects our overall view expressed in the said order inany manner whatsoever, nor does it affect the line ofreasoning which we have expressed in the said order. Thisnote is accordingly disposed off.

[Y.B. BHATT, J.][C.K. BUCH, J.]

written arguments presented by Mr. Mody on 11-3-2003 in city civil suit5827/2001 hearing

2004-10-23T01:49:00.000-07:00

Written arguments on 11-3-03

(1) Dhanyushya First created charge in August 1998 for Rs

11.0 crores and only then issued notice calling for

statutory records from plaintiff. This shows ulterior motive

to grab ownership titles.

(2) It needs to ne noted that Mr. Jalundhwala cannot create

Charge on the assets of Rupmanglam and Flovin when he

did not have necessary statutory records to pass

resolution for any transfer of ownership of shares, change

in directorship, change in registered office, approval of

balance sheet, approval of creation of charge etc.

(3) When Bank-Defendant had written to Core Health Care

On 3-8-1999, it appears that they were not satisfied with

The independent report letter dated 31-7-1999 and this

Contradicts with the statement filed by the bank-

defendants.

(4) The fact that defendant did not make payment from

Flovin - Textile Traders Bank Account totaling Rs 74.00

Lacs to Bank of India in 1997 means that their conscience

knew fully well that they were not the sole directors of

Flovin as claimed by them on the basis of alleged

resignation to have taken place on 22-4-1996.

(5) Serious doubts on quality of vigilance inquiry conducted

by signatory of the letter dated 21-10-1999 Mr. S.R.

Krishnmurthy , head of Global Trust Bank’s Branch when

He was sacked by the bank as per the press reports.

(6) The defendant Bank has only obtained Auditor’s report

from M/s Shah & Shah (Contents not known) but has not

obtained Auditor’s report from Kashiparekh & Associates,

Auditor of Rupmanglam and Flovin while creating charge.

This shows collusion with defendants no 1 to 3.

(7) It needs to be observed that Bank has relied on documents

Between Dhanyushya and Suresh Modi executed on

24-7- 1995 which forms 19% share in property only. It has

not obtained original documents for balance 81%

belonging to Rupmanglam and Flovin to create charge.

Besides, defendants 1 to 3 have deliberately not furnished

The said documents and this shows collusion with Bank.

(8) As the defendant No 1,2 had disputes pending regarding

Flovin, there was no need for Mr. Jalundhwala to

Subsequently accept alleged resignation on 17-9-1996 in

case of plaintiff for Rupmanglam.

(9) Provision of Chapter XX_C of the Income Tax Act clearly

Stipulates that 37-I permission is absolutely essential even

When one makes attempt to acquire property by transfer

Of shares. Such transfer of property is void and illegal.

(10) Plaintiff is of firm opinion that this is fit case to initiate

Contempt proceedings as defendant no 1 to 3 has failed to

Hnonor the promise made by them to the court

Commissioner and when they did not disclose such

Promise to the High Court.

(11) Defendant 1 to 3 has malafide intention of not furnishing

Evidence of ownership especially when such documents,

Information must have been filed by them while seeking

Amalgamation from the High Court and thereby illegal

Acts do not get exposed.

(12) When the defendant bank cannot take strong legal actions

Against the defendat 1,2,3 for not furnishing even simple

Evidence of minutes, balance sheet, transfer of shares

Called for in the suit means that they are in collusion with

The defendants.

(13) Dhanyushya while approaching Gujarat High Court has

Not stated that Mr. Soparkar appearing as Counsel

Happens to be one of the escrow person in the M.O.U.

Between the parties. This shows malafide intention to

Challenge the orders passed by the Civil Court with an

Intention to veil their illegal acts.

(14) The defendants 1,2,3 till date has given only denial

Statements, but they have not been able to furnish report

of compliance from the escrow persons consiststing of

Mr. Soparkar and Mr. Kashiparekh adducing original

Share certificate, transfer deed, letters of resignation,

Minute book records which clearly means that the escrow

Persons as well as the auditors do not want to confirm their

Alleged claim of directorship,ownership of shares,

ownership of property to support creation of charge.

(15) It needs to be observed that when Court has asked then to

Adduce evidence of ownership, except for denial

Statements they have not furnished any concrete evidence

Of ownership of shares, ownership of Rupmanglam

property so as to pass necessary resolution to create

charge.

(16) It needs to be observed that defendant 1,2,3 has not

Furnished any evidence to support their claim of

Directorship, and alleged resignations. It is only defendant-

bank who furnishes such information.

(17) The appropriate authority of Income –Tax has raised issue

Of 37-I in respect of Rupmanglam and Flovin by writing

Letter to plaintiff in his capacity of directorship of these

Two companies. Grave legal complications to plaintiff

and others can arise on account of such letters.

(18) Dhanyushya and Core Health Care documents filed in

the Income-Tax department were located in Insuarance

Building, Ashram Road, where fire took place on 29th

April 2002 and 10th December 2002. This has to be seen

In the light of non-cooperation to the Court

Commissioner and immediately approaching High

Court where direction was given to give reply on 26th

April 2002 and in light of letter addressed to Auditors

Of Dhanyuhsya on April 17, 2002 and posted on April

20 , 2002 and also in light of article which appeared in

Indian Express on 7th December, 2002 regarding great

Bank robbery on 7th December 2002 which revealed

Name of defendant 2 & 3. It is therefore, absolutely

Necessary to call for all evidences in the interest of

Justice and put the documents under aval japti to

prevent any further legal complications.

(19 ) Dhanyushya has no locustandi in the matter at the

Moment as they have given charge to the Bank. It is only

when Core HealthCare redeems the payment, then only

they can come into picture as they only own 19% share

in the property while 62% share in the property is not

owned by them.

(20) Jalundhwala can claim to continue as director only if legal

Share holder of the company him to act as director, and it is

Legal share holder who would authorize legal director to

Create charge.

(21) It is specifically referred in letter addressed to Global Trust

Bank on 24-7-1999 that as per record of right ,

Rupmanglam EXCLUSIVELY OWN CONSTRUCTION

While charge created by Dhanyushya and Flovin depict

That the construction alos belong to Dhanyushya and

Flovin. This is reflected in Form-8 filed with Registar of

Companies. Such creation of charge is void ab-initio.

(22) The question of limitation is mix question of fact and law.

Therefore, it cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage

Even otherwise the pleading of plaint contemplate that the

Suit is within limitation.

Honourable Court may please to allow the injunction

Application.

DATE 11=3=-03 -----------------------
AHMEDABAD

notice of motion passed under injunction in civil suit 5827/2001

2004-10-23T01:40:00.000-07:00

Text of written arguments submitted on 11-3-2003 by Mr. Mody

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/10/written-arguments-presented-by-mr-mody.html

Text of written arguments submitted on 17-3-2003 by Mr. Mody

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/text-of-written-arguments-on-17-3-2003.html

The issues and contentions raised in the written arguments , the defendents , the defendants – (Dhanyushya, Jatin Jalundhwala, Core Health Care, Global Trust Bank ) have not furnished written reply nor has the court discussed the contents of the written arguments raised by Mr. Plaintiff- Mody while passing orders on 8-4-2003 as under:-

ORDER BELOW EXH(6) IN City civil suit .S. NO. 5827/2001 on 8-4-2003

(1) The notice of motion is moved by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants their agents servants, assignees office bearers, executors employees directors etc etc from dealing with the suit property in any mode or manner and from creating any charge lien etc etc on the suit property till the decision of suits on merits.

(2) The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction contending that Roopmanglam Investment Private limited company is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 on 28-7-1980 and the directorship is limited or restricted one in respect of family members only and therefore the transferability of the shares is also of restrictive nature and share capital of Roopmanlgam Investment Private Limited is Rs 15,00,000/-. That Dhanyushya Financial Private Limited is also a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act 1956 and the defendant no2 here in is a company secretary by profession and also a manager secretarial (legal) and also so called director of defendant No 1. That the defendant no 3 is also a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act and the defendant No 4 is a Global Trust Bank engaged in banking business on large scale.

(3) That there is a property situated in chhadvada Taluka city TP scheme no 3/5final plot no 768 hissa no 10 paiki admeasuring 30656 sq meter and 62%land 1900.59 land along with construction is of the ownership ofRoopmanglam Investment Private Limited and 19% land is of theownership and of possession of Flovin Plastics Private Ltd and 19% land isof the ownership and possession of Dhanyushya Financial Private Ltd andsaid land is of the joint ownership and yet partition is not effected betweenthe coowners and it is accordingly mutated in village form 7x12 also andthe land of the ownership of the ownership of Roopmanglam InvestmentPrivate Ltd is more particulary described in notice of motion para 2 andhere in after referred to as the suit property. That as per order of Revenuedepartment no ULC/3496/1917 dated 5-1-0-96 the RoopmanglamInvestment Private Limited is ordered to maintain status quo on the spot inrespect of that suit property.

(4) That the defendant no 3 Core Health Care Limited for the purpose of its business has to take financial assistance, of and on and he defendant no 2 in the capacity of administrator of defendant no 3 manages for bank loan etc from the defendant no 4 but that has to be done, by keeping in mind the interest of shareholders and investors.

(5) According to plaintiff he has never tendered resignation from the post of Director of Roopmanglam Investment Private limited and u/s 303(2) of Companies Act it is mandatory to submit information regarding resignation of directors of the company in prescribed form no 32 to the Registrar of Companies along with minutes book of the meeting of the company and the defendants no 1 to 3 have got up that false fact and as stated above he never tendered his resignation and nor any resolution came to be passed to that effect in the meeting of the company and nor that information has been forwarded to the Registrar of Companies.

(5) Then it is contended by the plaintiff that pursuant to MOU between theDefendant 1 and its share holders and subject to compliance of terms and conditions of MOU and subject to payment of amount stated there in he has handed over blank form no 32 along with MOU to auditor Shri Kashiparekh and the defendant no2 has managed to collect that blank form auditor Shri Kashiparekh and has misused that form, but according to him even today he is continued to be director and shareholder of Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited.

(6) That the defendants no 1to 3 has obtained financial assistance of Rs 11 from the defendant no 4 in respect of suit property and without payment of that amount or by alleged deemed payment has obtained a loan of Rs. 12.5o crores against the mortgage of suit property of Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd.

(7) It is the say of the plaintiff, that without resolution of company no chargecannot be createdon the property of company and that before mortgage of suit property no resolution came to be passed by Roopmanglam Investment Private limited ant that the defendant No 2 has signed as director of the company falsely and the entire procedure is defective.

(8) According to plaintiff though revenue department of Government of
Gujarat has issued injunction order on 5-10-96 in respect of properties of Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited the property came to be mortgaged with the defendant no 4 and which is illegal .

(9) That before, mortgage of the suit property, the defendants no3 and 4 have No 3 and 4 have not cared to get appraisal report and the whole procedure adopted for loan is collusive and for personal befits of defendants no 3 and 4.

(10) Then it is contend by the plaintiff that transfer of the shares of himself and his family members, are not made in accordance with rules and made without taking approval of share holders and that too on the strength of false record and therefore MOU arrived at between himself and the defendant no 1is non effective and without consideration and defendants no 1 to 3 incollusion of family members of the plaintiff and by forged signature committed fraud and malpractice and consequently the charge created onthe properties of the company is non effective without consideration and liable to be dismissed or cancelled.

(11) That under chapter 20 and S 269 and 37(I) of Income tax it is mandatory for the vendor and vendee to fill in the form and for alienation of the property prior sanction is also necessary and the defendants have committed flagarant violation of statutory provisions and there fore he has addressed a letter to the
defendant no 4 on 27-4-99 to which the defendant no 4 has filed evasive reply.

(12) That defendant no 1 has served a notice to the plaintiff through its advocate A D shah where he has been addressed as a director and from that notice also it is clear that the defendant no 4 without scrutiny of basic document sand in collusion with defendants no 1 to 3 have created false charge in respect of suit
property and proposes to sell the property of the company for the alleged dues of it, and in fact the defendants with each other propose to grab away the suit property.

(13) According to the plaintiff the defendants no 3 to 4 are about to enter in to further transaction in respect of suit property and if that succeed accordingly then the plaintiff would suffer irreperable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money and therefore by filing present notice of motion it has been solicited that the defendants be restrained from alienating or dealing with the suit property till the decision of suit on merits.

(14) The defendants no 1 has filed its detailed reply against plaint as well as notice Of motion vide exh 41 and which came to be adopted by the defendants no 2 and 3 by pusrshish exh 42 and 432 respectively and contended that the suit of the plaintiff suffers from non rejoinder of necessary parties in as much as the plaintiff wants to seek relief with respect to the properties of Roopmanglam
Investment Private Ltd(now having merged with Span Medicals Limited), although the said Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited is not joined as a party to the suit.

(15) The defendants then contended that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Limitation. Even on the principles of delay7 latches estoppel and acquiescence the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed in the suit and the notice of motion.

(16) That the defendant no 1 was desiring of buying the immoveable property described in of exh 41 and therefore a memorandum of understanding dated 24-1-95 was executed between Shri (1) Sureshchandra Shamaldas Mody (2) Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd (3) Floviu Plastics Private Ltd and defendant no 1 as per terms and conditions spelt out in para 7:2 7:2(a) (b) and based on aforesaid meorandum of understanding dated 24-1-95 another memorandum of understanding dated 24-1-95 was executed between(1) Pankaj S Mody Huf (2) Mrs. Sukhini P Mody (3) Mr. Pankaj S. Mody(Plaintiff) (4) Mrs Pankaj S Mody (trustee of parthiv Trust (5) Mrs Pankaj S. Mody (trustee of Parthiv trust) (5) Himanshu S. Mody (6) Himanshu S Mody (HUF) (7) Mrs. Mauna H. Mody (8) Himanshu s Mody (9) Himanshu s Mody (Trustee of Rushabh trust (10) Mrs Mauna H Mody (trustee of Rajvi Trust) (11) Sureshchandra S Mody HUF (12) Mr. Sureshchandra mody (13) Mrs Nalini S Modi ALL OF THEM BEING VENDORS AND Dhanyushya Finacial Private Ltd (defendant no 1). The shares said Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited were agreed to be sold by the aforesaid 13 persons including thje plaintiff in favour of defendant no 1 and the salient features of the said MOU are stated in paragraph 7:3(a) 1to 7 (b) (i) (a)(b) (ii) (iii) (C) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) exh 41 and by a memorandum of understanding dated 24-1-95 executed between 13 persons said above all of them being vendors and Dhanyushya Fiancial Private Ltd (defendant no 1) the shares of the said Flovin Platics Private Ltd were agreed to be sold by the aforesaid 13 persons including the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no 1 and the salient features of the said MOU are stated in paragraph 7: (4) (a) 1to 7 (b) (a) b(ii) (iii) c(1) to iv ex 41

(17) That an agreement to sell dated 24-1-95 was also entered in between Shri Suareshchandra Mody and defendant no 1 as regards the sale of 19% of said Sureschandra Modi to defendant no 1. The said agreement to sell was also registered with the Registrar of Documents. An application under s269 of Income tax was made for obtaining permission for the transfer of the said property from Sureshchandra Mody in favour of defendant no 1 and accordingly permission dated 28-4-95 was obtained from the incometax department. Thereafter sale deed dated 24-7-95 was also entered between Sureschandra Mody and defendant no 1 in which the plaintiff signed as one of the witnesses.

(18) Pursuant to the aforesaid MOUs the defandant no1 made payments as per the details (given in Annexure A. out of the said payments, the details of the payments made by defendant no 1 to the plaintiff and other persons who are vendors of the Mou dated 24-1-95 so far as Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd is concerned are given in annexure B. The payment made by defendant no 1 to the vendor in the MOU dated 24-1-95 so far as Flovin Platics Priavte Limited is concerned is given at annexure C and the details of payment made
by defendant no 1 to Sureschandra Mody are concern are given at Annexure D. That the plaintiff has accepted the said payment and from the bank statement it is clear that the cheques issued by the defendant no 1 to the plaintiff has been accepted.

(19) That the suit property has already been transferred in the name of defendant no1.The plaintiff who was one of the erstwhile directors of Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited resigned as the director of the Said Company and necessary form no 32 for change of directors of said Roopmanglam investment Private Ltd has been filled up and submitted to the Registrar of Companies by plaintiff himself along with defendant no 3 who was earlier appointed as the director of the said company pursuant to MOU Dated 24-1-95.

(20) It is thus clear that all the vendors of the MOUs have been fully paid off as Per the terms of the MOUs .All other terms of the MOU have been fully complied with. No other vendor has taken any objection with respect to the transfer of shares or property and it is plaintiff who is now belatedly attempting to create hindrance in the enjoyment of the suit property byu defenndat no 1.

(21) That much prior to the filing of the suit, the suit property has been given as mortgage on 31-8-1998 to defendant no 4 bank. The said mortgage was obtained by defendant no 4 after knowing about the order of urban the order of urban land ceiling authority dated 5-10-1996.

(22) The defendants denied that the constitution of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd was kept for the family members of the plaintiff or that the Provisions for transfer of shares said Roopmaglam Investment Private Ltd Is of restrictive nature. The defendants denied that the property is now of ownership of Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd or Flovin Platics Private Limited in the proportion of 62% and 19% respectively.

(23) That the order of status quo dated 5-10-96 passed under the urban land ceiling and regulations act has been withdrawn by an order dated 25-1-99 by the Joint Secretary Department of Revenue Government of Guajarat and it is denied by the defendants that the plaintiff has any share or right in the share capital of Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited and it is denied that the defendant no 2 by obtaining form 32 from the auditor Shri Kashiparekh presented the same before the Registrar of Companies by misusing form no
In fact the said form no 32 was filled long back in September 1996. This suit is filed only as an after thought i.e after passing of more than reasonable time and fact itself shows that the suit of the plaintiff is malafide and is an attempt to extract money out of the defendants.

(24) The defendants then contended that the plaintiff has no primae facie case and Balance of convenience is also not in his favour and that the plaintff has not approached the court with clean hands and obtained the order of status quo by suppressing material facts.

(25) That the plaintiff has acquiesed in transfer of shares and change of director of Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited as in the transfer of the suit property from sureschandra Mody to defendant NO 1 and therefore the notice of motion moved by the plaintiff is devoid of any merits and it requires to be dismissed.

(26) The defendant no 4 i.e Global Trust Bank has filed its reply at exh 53 and Contended that it si a bonafide mortgage for value without notice of the Properties owned by M/s Roopmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd M/s Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd and M/s Dhanyushya Fiancial Private Ltd and M/s Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd and which si more particulary detailed and described in schedule (page no 8 and 9) and have offered the said properties which have offered the said properties which have clear and marketable title having is no lien charge mortgage and other circumstances on the said properties as security by way of equitable mortgage for various fiancial facilities granted to M/s Core Health Care Ltd to secure due repayment of the said finacial facilites.

(27) that after verifying and satisfying the title of the said properties and after taking necessary search of the revenue record as well as record of the registrar of companies through its advocates/solicitors taken the said properties as collateral security. That at the request of M/s Core Health Care Ltd company registered under the Companies Act 1956 granted term loan facility of Rs 12.50 crore with interest and also delivered necessary documents to it.

(28) That M/s Core Health Care Ltd accepted all the terms and conditions of the sanction communicated by the defandant no 4 M/s Core Health Care Ltd in security where of signed executed and delivered documents to it. M/s Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd, M/s Flovin Plastics Private Ltd and M/s Dhanyushya Finacial Pvt Ltd along with others have furnished guarantee and thereby guaranteed due repayment of financial facility granted to M/s Core Health Care Private limited and M/s Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd and M/s Flovin Plastics Private Ltd and M/s Dhanyushaya Financial Private Ltd have along with other security mortgaged their immoveable properties. That the plaintiff though heavily relied on the MOU for the reasons best known to him has not placed the said MOU on record and suppressed the same. The plaintiff though well aware about the same with oblique reasons not taken any steps to protect his right. The defendant no 4 then reiterated that the title that the titles of the said properties were at the time of the availment credit facility investigated through an advocate and after obtaining the title clearance certificate the said properties were accepted as security and has also reinvestigated the entire process of mortgage as per the instruction of its head office and also contended that the plaintiff has no primaefacie case, nor balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and therefore notice of motion deserves to be dismissed with costs.

(29) I have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
(30) The first and foremost question arises for determination is whether the plaintiff continued to be the director of Roopmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd a nd in that context it is expedient to refer 53/33 which is a certified copy of Form 32 of Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd and and from that it is clear tjhat the present plaintiff has resigned as director of the company and from mark 53/32 which is also a certified copy of form no 32 of M/s Flovin Plastics Private Ltd it appears that present defendant No 2 Shri Jatin Laladhunwala was appointe as director of the company and from mark 54/35 which is also a Xerox copy of form 32 of M/s Flovin Plastics Private Limited it appears that the present plaintiff has resigned from the post of director of the said company and it does not appear any truth in saying of the plaintiff that the defendant no 2 by obtaining form 32 from the auditor Shri Kaship[arkeh presented the same before the Registrar of Companies and Shri Kashiparekh has not filed in support of that in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not a illeterate person bout once upon the director of Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited and Flovin Plastics Private Limited and would not have handed over a blank form of his signature to any person which can be used against himself.

(31) Now it may also be stated thavt the suit of the plaintiff also suffers from nonrejoinder of necessary parties in as much as the plaintiff wants to seek relief of Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited ( now having merged with Span Medicals Limited) although said Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited has been not impleaded as parties to the present suit.

(32) Now it is also pertinent to note that whether the plaintiff is guilty of Suppressing so many vital facts from the court for obtaining injunction only and which disentitiles him to grant of discretionary relief claimed for and in that context it may be noted that an immoveable property bearing sub plot no 1 of final plot 768 of Ellisbridge Town Planning scheme no 3(varied) admeasuring 3669.72 sq yard i.e. 3065 sqmeteres originally belonged to the following persons:-

(a ) Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited 62%
(b) Flovin Plastics Private Limited 19%
(c) Sureschandra S Mody 19%

and it appears that the defendant no 1 was desiring of buying the said immoveable properties described above and therefore on 24-1-1995 a M.O.U. was executed between Suresh Mody (ii) Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd (iii) Flovin Plastics Private Ltd and based on the aforesaid MOU dated 24-1-1995 another MOU dated 24-1-1995 executed between 13 persons whose names are furnished in para 7:3 of wide exh 41 (defendant no 1) all being vendors and Dhanyushya Financial Private Limited (Defendant no 1 here in ) the shares of the said Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited as well as Flovin Plastics Private Ltd were agreed to be sold by the 13 persons including the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no 1 and both MOUs are produced by the defendant no1 vide mark 56/1 a dn 56/2 dated 24-1-1995 and it is not necessary to reproduce the contents of terms and conditions of both MOUs dated 24-1-1995 and sufficient to note that an agreement to sell dated 24-1-1995 was also entered between Shri Suresh Mody of the 19% of the said sureshandra mody to be defendant no 1 vide mark 56/4 and tha the said agreement came to be registered with the registrar of documents and the plaintiff has made trump card of his case to the fact that the requisite permission has not been obtained under section 269 of the income t ax act from mark 56/3 dated 28-4-1995 it is clear that necessary permission was obtained from the income tax department and there after a sale deed dated 24-7n-1995 produced vide mark 56/5 was also entered between the defendant no 1 and Shri Suresh Mody and the plaintiff himself has signed as one of the witnesses.

(33) From the documentary evidence it also appears that pursuant to the aforesaid MOUs the defendant no 1 made payments to the plaintiff and other persons who are vendors of the MOUs dated 24-1-1995 and that the Defendant no 1 made payments to the plaintiff and other persons who are vendors of the MOUs dated 24-1-1995 and that i.e. plaintiff has accepted the said payment ( mark 56/14 56/15/ 56/16 56/17).

(34)Thus the suit property has been already transferred in the name f
Of defendant no 1 and all the vendors of the MOUs have been fully paid of as Per the terms of the MOUs and all other terms of the MOUs have been fully Complied with and it further appears from the documentary6 evidence On record that no other vendor has taken any objection with respect to the Transfer of the shares or the property.

(35)It is one of the contention of the plaintiff that revenue department, Government of Gujarat has issued injunction order in respect of properties of Roopmanglam Investmetn Private Limited on 5-10-10-96 and though the suit property came to be mortgaged with defendant 4 but from mark 56/13 dated 25-1-1999 it appears that the said order came to be vacated by order of the competent authority.

(36)From the documentary evidence on record it also appears that much prior To the filing of the suit the suit property has been given as mortgage on 31-8- 1998 to defendant no 4 bank.

(37)From the discussion made above it is clear that the say of the plaintiff that the constitution of Roopmanglam Investment Private Limited was kept for the family members of the plaintiff of the provisions for transfer of shares of the plaintiff or the provisions for transfer of shares of said Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd and the plaintiff has acqueised in transfer of shares
And change of directors of Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd as well as In the transfer of suit property from Sureshchandra Mody to defendant No 1 and of para 8 plaint exh(1) be referred minutely then it leaves no doubt that the plaintiff is and was fully aware of two MOUs dataed 24-1-1995 and according to him he signed in Form 32 and two mous subject to the condition to receive payment stated therein did receive the payment as per two MOUs and the fact of signing in blank form no 32 and handing over the same to auditor Shri Kashiparekh and the misuse of the said defendants appear to be
to be quite ridiculous.

(38) In context of above discussion and to that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for delay and latches it may be noted that two MOUs took place on 24-1-1995 and agreement to dale took place on 24-1-1995 and sale deed in respect of suit property took place on 24-7-1995 and mortgage deed also came to be executed long back in year 1998 and though the plaintiff had remained silent and for the first time filed the suit in year 2001 and there fore also the
plaintiff is not entitled to any interim relief at this stage and after 1 –4-1996 i.e. after resignation as director as director of Roopmanglam, it does not appear that he has made any inquiry that for what reasons he is not getting the notices of Boards meeting etc and in my opinion his unexplained is self eloquent to say that he was fully aware that he has no share or right in the share capital of Roopmanglam Investment Private Ltd and is now belatedly attempting to create hindrance in the enjoyment of the suit property.

(39)Much has been argued on the point that the defendant no 4 i.e Global Trust Bank has advanced a loan to the defendant no 1 without scrutinizing the basic document but one Kreishna Kabra in reply cum affidavit ex 52 against notice of motion moved by the plaintiff stated in detail (para 4) that after verifying and satisfying the title of the properties and after taking necessary search of the revenue record as well as record of Registrar of Companies through its advocate/solicitor taken the suit property of collateral Security and that the defendant no 1 has accepted all the terms
and conditions of sanctioned communicated and executed necessary
documents in its favour.

(40)The plaintiff is heavily relied on the notice issued by the defendant no 1 Through its advocate Shri A D Shah and Xerox copy of which is produced at Mark 3/8 and attempted to show that the defendant no 1 it self has addressed the plaintiff as a director and asked to hand over the books of account statutory registers and other records but merely from that it cannot be said that the case of the plaintiff is getting sup[port and otherwise also that notice is of dated 14-10-1998.

(41) For foregoing reasons I have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to show primaeface in his favour and the defendants cannot be restrained from alienating or dealing with the suit property and therefore this N.M deserves to be dismissed and the following order is therefore passed.

ORDER:-

The notice of motion moved by the plaintiff fails and it is hereby dismissed.

Costs would be the costs in the suit pronounced in open court on this 8th day of
day of April 2003.

8-4-2003

Draft of Inquiry letter to Bar Council of Gujarat

2004-10-22T01:12:00.000-07:00

Bar Council of Gujarat
SURKHEJ -GANDHINAGAR HIGH WAY
AHMEDABAD
PHONE :079- 27434073, 079-27433460
FAX: 079-27433964

SIR,

SUBJECT: COMPLAINT NO 38/2002 FILED BY PANKAJ MODY AGAINST HIGH COURT
ADVOCATE SAURABH SOPARKAR IN SEPTEMBER 2002.
REFER INTERNET LINK : http://www.barcoun.blogspot.com

Kindly refer to above.

Please furnish copy of detailed reply of Mr. Saurabh Soparkar pursuant to the reply given by Pankaj Mody as referred in the internet link http://www.barcoun.blogspot.com

Please state as to the reasons why the Bar Council was reluctant to send copy of complaint to Mr. Saurabh Soparkar immediately on recepit of Mr. Mody's complaint in September 2002 till July 2003?

Please state as to the reasons why the matter was not promptly brought to the notice of the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court so as to prevent malpractices of the advocates and let court examine the matter so that Judiciary is not taken for a ride by the advocates.

Kindly furnish detailed explanation of each and every committee member of the Bar Council separately as to what he has to say about the reply given by Mr. Soparkar pursuant to the reply given by Mr. Mody in September 2003.

Have you taken initiative to draw the attention of the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court pursuant to Mr. Soparkar's reply and give Mr. Mody a chance to make comment and seek justice in the matter ?

You would furnish a reply forthwith on receipt of this letter. Your silence and vague reply would be construed to protect Mr. Soparkar instead of doing justice to the litigant attempting to expose the banking frauds.

Thanking you.

Notice issued to Sushil Handa of Core Health Care on 12-01-2000

2004-10-20T06:38:00.000-07:00

Notice issued by Mr. P S Mody

By Registered Post Ad

January 12,2000

1) Core Health Care Ltd
“ CORE TOWERS” NR> Parimal Crossing
Ahmedabad 380 006

2) Mr. Sushilkumar Handa, Chariman and Managing Director of Core Health Care Ltd “ CORE TOWERS” Nr. Parimal Crossing
Ahmedabad

Sir,

Under the instructions of my client Shri Pankaj Sureshcnadra Mody, I undersigned Shri J. J. Patel, advocate having his office at 33 Arjun Complex , Naroda and residing at B1 -402, Vishwas Apartments, Sola Railway Crossing, Sola Road, Ahmedabad address this notice to you.

1. My client Shri Pankaj S. Mody is owner of 200 shares of Core Health Care Limited since 1995. My client Shri Pankaj S Mody had purchased 200 shares of Core Health Care Ltd from the market based on the performance and administration and the above shares stand in his name even today. The market price has suffered severe erosion in prices.

2. You are director of Core Health Care Ltd and you look after the affairs of Core Health Care Ltd and you also are involved in policy matters. Implementation matters and corrective action.
3. (a) You along with the other directors of Core Health Care Ltd by misusing the trust of shareholders reposed in the directors of Core Health Care has diverted a large sum of approximately Rs 39 crores to Technology Finance Ltd since 1996-97 as interest free loan without specifying time period and of no benefit to share holders of Core Health Care Ltd especially when Core Health Care Ltd has been incurring losses, has not declared dividends since long; and has accumulated losses to the tune of Rs 290.00 crores approximately and the company is not in a positon to pay back the interest as well as installments to financial institutions and banks in time. The company management is also not serious in recovering the loans given even when it is facing severe working capital constraints and has suffered huge accumulated losses.
(b) The balance sheet of Technology Finance Ltd for the period ending 31-3-1998 and 31-3-1999 reveal that Mr. Ameet Desai and Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala are the directors of Technology Finance Ltd. INcidently, both these persons are employees of Core Health Care Ltd drawintg high remuneration from Core Health CVare Ltd and it is naturally expected from you as director of Core health Care Ltd to demand job performance from Mr. Ameet Desai and Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala when such large funds are put at their disposal in Technology Finance Ltd and ask them to repay with interest when Core Health Care ltd itself is on fire (as accumulated losses are to the tune of Rs 290 crores , non payment of interest and instalemnet on time, severe working capital constraints as per the current audited balance sheet of Core Health Care Ltd.)
© In view of this, you as Director of Core Health Care Ltd shall furnish satisfactory answers to the following questions and what was stand taken by each of the directos in moving various resolutions pertaining to interest free loan to Technology Finance Ltd:-

· Why such large funds amounting to Rs 39 crores as interest free loan were given to Technology Finance Ltd?
· How this has benefited Core Health Care ?
· Why the repayment of funds was not satisfied ?
· As the funds are not recovered for almost over two and half years, what measures are being taken to retrieve the funds?
· Name of the directors who has called back this loans in board meetings and when? What was the stand of other directors ?
· Whether the managing director of Core Health Care has referred in minutes the steps taken by him to recover these funds.
· Is there any corporate governance followed by Board of Directors?
· Has nominee directors of financial institutions insisted the managing dirctor to retrieve these funds back before granting fresh loans or rescheduling the loans as well as accrued interest?
· Whether the directors of Core Health Care have questioned the excess remuneration paid to the Chairman and Managing Director and whether they have raised the issue in board meetings that the CMDis asked to pay back the overdrawn amount immediately and if so, what has been the reply of CMD especially when the company is passing through grave financial crisis as reported in the balance sheet.

4. You as director of Core Health Cre Ltd can persuade Mr. jatin Jalundhwala and Mr. Ameet Desai who are employees of Core Health Care Ltd and ask them to refund Rs 39 crores taken by Technology Finance Ltd when Core Hearth Care Ltd is in shortage of funds. Your company is to take immediate legal action against them so as to recover the said loan in case they are not refunding loadn given to Technology Finance Ltd.
5. No man of common sense and prudence heading a Public Ltd comp[any would ethically think of diverting huge funds to Technology Finance Ltd , when it is of no benefit to the shareholders of the company for such a long period. When your company is facing acute working capital shortage and on other hand you as director of Core Heaalth Care Ltd continue to give interest free loan to tune of Rs 39 crores and do not recover the said amount with interest, then you have conspired with other directors and employees of Core Health Care and have embezzled and have used company’s funds for diversion for malafide intentions. This is nothing short of cheating the shareholders of Core Health Care and such acts and omissions on the part of Chariman and Managing Director and his associates – ccosntitute manareaa and such acts and omissions are reflective of malafide intentions for which shareholder can take appropriate legal action against the Chariman and managing Director and other directors.
6. Your company has taken interst bearingloan of Rs 12.5 crores from Global Trust Bank on illegal mortgage of property coowned by Dhanyushya Financial Ltd along with two other companies. You are aware that Mr. Jatin Jalundhwalla and Mr. Ameet Desai are/were directors of Dhanyushya Financial Ltd at the time of illegal mortgaging of the property to Global Trust Bank for the benefit of Core Health Care Ltd.
7. Be it noted that you as director of Core Health Care shall immediately and fully recover Rs 39 crores along with accrued interest from Technology Finance Ltd and pay off the irregul/overdue loans to financial institutions and bankers immediately so as to eliminate depletion of funds of Core Health Care Ltd instead of asking for fresh funds so as to save interst and principal amount. In case Technology Finance Ltd does not pay back the sum with interst – you shall immediately take legal action on Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala and Mr. Ameet Desai of Technology Finance Ltd. Failure to do so will depict that you have joined hands with Mr. Jatin jalundhwala and Mr. Ameet Desai of Technology Finance Ltd.
8. On one hand Mr. Ameet Desai and Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala are employees of Core Health Care Ltd drawing high remuneration and on other hand they are directors of Technology Finance Ltd as well as Dhanyushya Financial Ltd. This show interconnectedness. Therefore , you in connivance have conspired with other directors and employees in money laundering act and have cheated and have embexzled and siphone nad have diverted company’s funds with malafide intentions and thereby committed fraud and breach of trust. For this act of cheating, breach of trust, embezzlement and diversion of funds , my client shall take legal action against the directors of Core Health Care Ltd and approach SEBI,etc.
9. On one hand , Core health care Ltd gives interest free loan of Rs 39 crores to Technology Finance Ltd (where Mr. Ameet Desai and Mr Jatrin Jalundhwala are directors ) and on other hand you directors accept Rs 12.5 crores interest bearing loan from Global Trust Bank at the instance of Mr. Ameet Desai and Mr. Jatin Jalundhwalla of Dhanyushya Financial Ltd. As a matter of sound business practices, you as director of Core Health Care Ltd would first recall interest free loan of Rs 39.00 crores from Mr. JATIN JALUNDHWALA and Ameet Desai of Technology Finance Ltd before accepting Rs 12.5 crores as interst bearing loan from bank (where once again same Jatin Jalundhwala and Ameet Desai are associated with Dhanyushya Financial Ltd as directors). It is clear that your intentions are malafide. In case you value shareholders rights , you shall give satisfactory reply immediately on receipt of this notice as to why shareholders of Core Health Care need to suffer loss on share value.
10. The employees of Core Health Care in the past with the aidof various connections and with the help of others have used means of coercion, physical and mental injury and torture with a view to silnec my client and his family members. In view of this background, I as advocate of pankaj S Mody, caution that in case you directly or indirectly initiate steps to cause injury and/or harm to my client and /or his various family members and make any attempt to silence and immobilize him to cover up your acts, I shall hold all the directors responsible and shall have no alternative to expose your acts immediately.
11. You shall furnish the current lsit of shareholders and their addresses.

12. Your reply shall reach me within ten days of this notice.

Yours truly,

J.J.Patel

Enclsoures : Xerox copy of shares of Core Heatlh Care owned by Shri Pankaj S Mody

Copy to : M/s Shah and Shah , (auditor of Core Health care Ltd) , Ahmedabad

Draft of query letter to Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala

2004-10-15T02:08:00.000-07:00

Address of Jatin R Jalundhwala

602, Satkrut , PARTHSARATHI AVENUE

NR. SHYAMAL ROW HOUSE

132 RING ROAD

SATELLITE ROAD

AHMEDABAD 380 015 , GUJARAT

PHONE : RESID 079-26766226, 079- 26425147

WORK : 079-26560771

Reference links:-
L-1 Text of written arguments submitted on 11-3-2003 by Mr. Mody

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/10/written-arguments-presented-by-mr-mody.html

L-2 Text of written arguments submitted on 17-3-2003 by Mr. Mody

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/text-of-written-arguments-on-17-3-2003.html

L-3 Text of appeal from order filed by Mr. Mody as under:-

http://www.afo176.blogspot.com/

L-4 Text of complaint filed against Mr. Saurabh Soparkar as under :-

http://www.gtbcore.blogspot.com

SOME LEAD QUESTIONS THAT CAN BE RAISED TO JATIN JALUNDHWALA- through Registar of Gujarat High court hcguj@guj.nic.in or through the magistrate of Metropolitan Court -15 ,situated at Meghaninagar in Ahmedabad-in criminal defamation case 3326/99 filed by Core Health care against Mr. Mody.

v WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO SUBJECT MR. MODY TO POLICE REMAND FOR A PALTRY SUM OF RS 8 LAKHS THROUGH NAVRANGPURA POLICE STATION IN DECEMBER 1999 ,WHEN YOU HAD BEEN GENEROUS ENOUGH TO CREATE CHARGE ON RUPMANGALAM AND FLOVIN ASSETS IN FAVOUR OF GTB IN AUGUST 1998 FOR RS 11 CRORES EVEN WHEN YOU WERE AS AN EMPLOYEE OF CORE HEALTH CARE WERE CONSCIOUS THAT AMERICAN EXPRESS HAD FILED WINDING UP PETITION AGAINST CHL AND THE MATTER HAD COME UP FOR HEARING IN GUJARAT HIGH COURT AROUND SEPTEMBER 1997?

v WHEN MR MODY FILED CIVIL SUIT 5827/01 AND OBTAINED STAY ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY RUPMANGALAM AND FLOVIN WHY YOU DID NOT USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET BACK FROM CHL WHEN A SUM AS HIGH AS RS 12.5 CRORES WAS INVOLVED? WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR SUCH GENEROSTIY TO CORE HEALTH CARE AND SEVERE LEGAL ACTION SUCH AS POLICE REMAND AGAINST MR. MODY FOR A PALTRY SUM OF RS EIGHT LAKHS ??

v WHY YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO FURNISH A REPLY GIVEN BY MODY’S ADVOCATE K V SHELAT AS BACK AS JANUARY /FEBRUARY 1999 IN RESPECT TO THE NOTICES SENT BY YOU REPRESENTING DHANYUSHYA BEFORE HOLDING MR MODY TO REMAND ?

v YOU AND AMEET DESAI WERE ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TECHNOLOGY FINANCE LTD WHICH HAPPENED TO BE SUBSIDIARY OF CORE HEALTH CARE AND CORE HEALTH CARE HAD ADVANCED INTERERST FREE TERM LOAN OF A SUM OF RS 39 CRORES TO TECHNOLGY FINANCE LTD AND RETAINING THIS SUM YOU HAD BEEN GENEROUS TO EXTEND BY CREATING A CHARGE ON ASSETS OF DHANYUSHYA,RUPMAGALM,FLOVIN YOU MANAGED TO ADVANCE AN INTEREST BEARING SUM OF RS 12.5 CRORES THROUGH GLOBAL TRUST BANK TO CORE HEALTH CARE AND WITHOUT EXPECTATING IN RETURN FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANIES YOU ALLEGED TO HOLD DIRECTORSHIP THAT IS RUPMANGALM AND FLOVIN. WHAT IS THE EXPALANATION YOU HAVE FOR THAT?? Refer notice to Sushil Handa and Core Health Care as per the link:-
http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/10/notice-issued-to-sushil-handa-of-core.html

v WHY DID YOU ACCEPT SO CALLED ALLEGED RESIGNATION FOR RUPMANGALAM IN SEPTEMBER 1996, WHEN YOU HAD GRIEVANCES OF ALLEGED NONCOMPLIANCES IN MATTER RELATED TO FLOVIN AS REFERRED IN NOITCE ADDRESSED TO MODY AS LATE AS OCTOBER 1998 ???

v IN CASE YOU JALUNDHWALA CLAIMED DIRECTORSHIP OF FLOVININ 1997, WHY DID YOU NOT DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT FIRST IN FLOVIN’S TEXTILE TRADERS ACCOUNT AND THEN ISSUE PAYMENT TO BANK OF INDIA FOR OVER SEVENTY LAKHS??? YOU WERE NOT CONFIDENT THAT YOU WERE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WHO COULD WITHDRAW AMOUNT FROM TEXTILE TRADERS BANK ACCOUNT??

v WHY YOU FAILED TO FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO COURT COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUIT 5827/2001 ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAD PROMISED TO COURT COMMISSIONER ON 8TH JANUARY 2002 AS PER COURT COMMISSIONER REPORT SIGNED BY YOU??

v WHY YOU FAILED TO HAVE YOURSELF REPRESENTED BY AN ADVOCATE IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION 25 AND 26 SO AS TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF RUPMANGALAM AND FLOVIN AS ON ACCOUNT OF CORE HEALTH CARE’S NON PAYMENT THE ASSETS OF RUPMANGALAM AND FLOVIN WAS IN JEOPARDY??

v YOU HAVE FURNISHED COPIES OF MOUS IN CITY CIVIL COURT IN CIVIL SUIT 5827 MATTER AND WHERE IN THERE IS MENTION PRESENCE OF ESCROW PERSONS CONSISTING OF MR HEMANT KASHIPAREKH AND MR. SOPARKAR WHO HAVE DENIED THAT THEY HAVE PLAYED ROLE OF ESCROW PERSONS HAVING DENIED THAT THEY HAVE HANDED OVER ANY DOCUMENTS TO DHANYUHSHYA AND/OR YOU.IF SO , HOW HAVE YOU OBTAINED THE DOCUMENTS AND CREATED CHARGE WITH GTB ON IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY OF RUPMANGLAM AND FLOVIN???
Refer the link of complaint filed against Mr. Saurabh Soparkar in this regard to the Bar Council of Gujarat as per the link as under:-
Text of complaint filed against Mr. Saurabh Soparkar as under :-

http://www.barcoun.blogspot.com

v WHY YOU FAILED TO FILE WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT IN APPEAL FROM ORDER 176/03 AND ANSWER THE QUERIES RAISED BY MR MODY AND ALSO WHY DID YOU NOT HIRE ANY ADVOCATE IN THIS MATTER??? Refer the text of appeal from order as under:-
http://www.afo176.blogspot.com
v WHAT IS YOUR WRITTEN REPLY TO THE CONTENTIONS AND ISSUES RAISED BY MR. MODY IN THE APPEAL FROM ORDER 176/03?

v HOW COME THE SHARE OWNERSHIP OF ALL MODY FAMILY MEMBERS IS NOT REFLECTED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN DHANYUSHYA’S BALANCE SHEET??

v HOW COME SHARE OWNERSHIP OF PANKAJ MODY FAMILY IS NOT REFLECTED IN AUDITED B/S OF DHANYUHSYA IN 1996-97 ??

v WHAT STEPS YOU HAVE TAKEN AGAINST CORE HEALTH CARE FOR RECOVEY FOR RS 12.5 CRORES WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN HARSH WITH MR MODY BY SUBJECTING MODY TO POLICE REMAND FOR FIVE DAYS ??

v HOW COME YOU – JALUNDHWALA WERE SILENT TO WHAT WAS CALLED FOR AS NARRATED IN PARA NINE OF APPEAL FROM ORDER 176/2003 ??? what do you have to say about this ?

v FURNISH DETAILED REPLY TO WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FURNISHED BY MR. MODY IN CITY CIVIL SUIT 5827/2001 VIDE 11-3-2003 AND 17-3-2003. Refer links as under:-
Text of written arguments submitted on 11-3-2003 by Mr. Mody

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/10/written-arguments-presented-by-mr-mody.html

Text of written arguments submitted on 17-3-2003 by Mr. Mody

http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/09/text-of-written-arguments-on-17-3-2003.html

v. What is the reply furnished by Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh to the letter dated 29-7-1999 addressed to Mr. Kashiparekh by Mr. Mody ?? what is the reply given by Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh in this regard??

Letter addressed on 29-7-99 to Hemant Kashiparekh

http://kashiparekh.blogspot.com/2004/09/letter-addressed-to-kashiparekh-on-29.html

In case you have not been a party to banking fraud relating with GTB , you should not have any difficulty in giving the answers. Your silence would be construed that you are involved in banking fraud committed in collusion with others.

text of written arguments on 17-3-2003 in the city civil court

2004-09-26T09:17:00.000-07:00

BEFORE THE HONORABLE CITY CIVIL COURT

C.S. NO. 5827/2001

PLAINTIFF: PANKAJ MODY

VERSUS

DEFENDANTS: (1) DHANYUSHYA FINANCIAL PVT LTD

(2) JATIN JALUNDHWALA

(3) CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

(4) GLOBAL TRUST BANK

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF

(1) The learned advocate for defendant 1 to 3 is giving false impression that impression pertains to ownership of shares only by quoting example of a Public Limited Company which is out of context in the present case Plaintiff most respectfully submits to consider the matter in totality in view of attempt made by the learned advocate to distort as well as conceal the factual position by also presenting the arguments on behalf of defendant 4. This is as under:

(2) It is only when defendant 4 who has claimed directorship of defendant on the basis of their exhibit 32 showing appointment as additional Director on 21-2-95.This is primae-facie distorting factual position as narrated under.

(2-A) Defendant 2 being company secretary is aware that this appointment as additional director is subject to the provisions of section 260 of the Companies Act as referred in para 27, page 7 of exhibit 1 in Articles of Association and Memorandum of original submission by plaintiff . Section 260 states that such additional director shall hold office only upto the date of next Annual General Meeting of the Company. Defendant 2 alongwith defendant 1,3 and 4 is
intentionally misguiding the honourable court on this issue. An attempt is being made that the defendant 2 continues as director on the basis of exhibit 32 which has not been furnished by defendant 1 to 3.

(2-B) It is inconceivable that the advocate of defendant 1 would fail to mention appointment of additional director in his notice dated 12-12- 1998 as shown in exhibit 8( preeented by the plaintiff) , when he di so in his para 1 of notice dated 14-10-1998 (exhibit 7 of original submission
made by plaintiff) and therefore, defendant 2 knew fully well that he was not the director of the company and this fact was known by the learned Advocate A.D. SHAH

(2-C) Defendant 2 is not in a positon to adduce even a simple certificate from the auditor of Rupmanglam which gives confirmation to his claimed directorship.

(2-D) In view of exhibit 10(of plaintiff’s original submission) showing notice dated 21-12-1999. Defendant 4 has not adduced evidence in forming of certificate from the auditor about claimed directorship of defendant no 2.

(2-E) Defendant 2 while filing written reply has not dared to submit evidence in form of exhibit 32 that he continues to be director of Rupmanglam after the expiry of term as additional director.

(3) The defendants 1 to 3 did not have necessary statutory record as abundantly clar from under mentioned information.

(3-A) Defendant 1 in his notice dated 14-10-1998 (AS per para 5 of exhibit 7 submitted initially by plaintiff) has admitted that he does not have statutory record:- Para is reproduced “ Plaintiff has not handed over the statutory register to existing mangagement at the time of resignation….. due to your total inaction in this regard, my client is actually incurring the risk of committing breach of various provions of the Act and it is absolutely essential that this statutory registars are handed over immediately failing which it will be your responsibility to face the liability arising out of breach of various provisions of the acts”.

(3-B) Defendant 1 in para 1.1 and 2 (exhibit –8 of original submission by plaintiff ) has admitted that they do not have statutory records which means they cannot pass any resolution for creation of charge , transfer of shares, passing of audited balance sheet, change in directorship, etc. Defendant 4 is deliberately shielding the acts of defendant 1 to 3 to protect them.

(3-C) Defendant 1 to 3 have deliberately not honoured their commitment made to the Court Commissioner on 8th January ,2002 that they shall produce all necessary evidence on 10th January.

(4) Defendants have made false claim of resignation as apparent from following information.

(4-A) Learned advoate for defendant 1 to 3 cannot beg shelter of evidence furnished by defendant 4 in form of exhibit 33 and exhibit 36 showing alleged resignation under \ Section 302(2) especially when defendants 1 to 3 are relying only on their denial statements. Defendants 1 to 3 apprehend that such exhibit 33 and 35 are produced By them, it could invite criminal action on the basis of fabricated Documents furnished to the Honurable Court.

(4-B) Defendant no 4. who has furnished exhibit 33 and 35 has to establish that the said form was filed under section 303(2) which is the relevant section under Companies Act and not section 302 (2).

(4-C) Exhibit 33 and 35 clearly shows that form showing alleged resignation on 17-9-96 and 22-4-96 respectively was filed on 1-10-97. This itself creates doubts of authenticity of alleged resignation at that time.

(4-D) On page 24, para 7.10 of reply by defendants 1,2,3 that they have stated that “ It is denied that the resolution has been as regards the resignation of the plaintiff as the director of Rupmanglam “ and this statement CONTRADICTS WITH STATEMENT on page 4 of defamation case 3326/99 filed by defendant 3 and assumed to be supported by defendant 1,2 and 4 ) states that the resignation was accepted by the Directors of the Board with immediate effect.

(4-E) Exhibit 35 furnished by defendant 4 as regards to alleged resignation on 22-4-1996, it needs to be observed that name of defendant 2 – Jatin Jalundhwala show different size/fonts and therefore, primaefacie fabricated and false document. Defendant 1,2,3 are reluctant to file such exhibit to avoid any criminal action intiated by the Honorable Court for filing of such fabricated documentary evidence and they are using only guarded statements.

(4-F) The onus of filing form under section 303(2) has to be initated by the company only and not by the alleged outgoing director. However, exhibit 33 and 35 of defendant 4 show that it is being initiated by the one of the alleged outgoing director.This is invalid and illegal.

(4-G) Defendant 2 had a choice of not signing forms as shown by defendant 4 in exhibit 33 and 35 for accepting resignation when he had grievance against plaintiff and such grievance was made by issuing notice only after creation of charge. This shows malafide intention.

(5) Plaintiff continues to be the director of Rupmanglam is evident from following.

(5-A) Exhibit 15 furnished by plaintiff in the suit shows plaintiff’s signature as director of the company in March 1997 and presented to the Income Tax department.

(5-B) Exhibit 16 furnished by plaintiff depict that the appropriate authorities of Income Tax department that plaintiff is considered to be Director of Rupmanglam even in September 2001.

(5-C) notice given by defednat 1 on 12-12-1998 as referred in exhibit 8 presented by plaintiff initially has been addressed to the plaintiff as the director and has not been refuted by defendant 1 pursuant to reply filed in exhibit 9 and presented by the plaintiff during initial submission. This has not been refuted even by defendant 4 vide their letter on 21-10-1999 as evident from exhibit 18 presented by plaintiff initially.

(6) Plaintiff and other Mody family members continue to be owners of of shares of Rupmanglam as evident from the following and hence defendant 1,2,3 are not in a position to pass any resolution for creation of charge.

(6-A) Defendants 1,2,3 have not honoured the promises of furnishing evidence of ownership of shares as promised to the Court Commissioner on 8th January 2002.

(6-B) Defendant 1 in their audited balance sheet for 1996-97 does not reflect ownership of Rupmanglam alleged to be acquired from plaintiff and his immediate family members as stated in their reply.

(6-C) Paragarph 7 of exhibit 9 of in itial submission made by plaintiff shows letter dt 1-2-1999. The defendant 1 and 2 have not been able to furnish copy of auditor’c certificate for alleged transfer of shares.

(6-D) In view of exhibit 10 (initial plaintiff’s submission which shows notice dt 21-12-1999, defendant 4 has not been able to furnish legal ownership of shares, which is absolutely necessary to pass necessary resolution to create charge,etc. This has to be seen in light of defendant 1 , 2 admissions that they do not have statutory records.

----------------------------

17-03-03 (Sd)
Ahmedabad

Draft of Query letter to Institute of Chartered accountants of India

2004-09-25T02:16:00.000-07:00

To seek reply to the following e mail sent to the Institute of Chartered accountants of India

Received:
from [203.88.155.12] by web54208.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 07:43:07 PDT
Date:
Mon, 6 Sep 2004 07:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"pankaj mody"
Subject:
Inquiry on Auditors of GTB and auditor Hemant Kashiparekh of ahmedabad in relation to banking frauds in GTB Bank
To:
president@icai.org, vicepresident@icai.org, disc@icai.org, karthik@icai.org
CC:
ahdicai@eth.net, ahdicai@yahoo.com, icaimumb@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Bcc:
tiindia@hotmail.com, suchetadalal@yahoo.com, asianage@icenet.net
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1771480107-1094481787=:62093"
Content-Length:
18914

From:
Pankaj S Mody
2nd Floor , Janmangal Apartment
40 BMM Society , Paldi ,
Ahmedabad 380 006
Email id : psmody@yahoo.com

September 6,2004

To

The President of
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
New Delhi

Subject: Auditors of Global Trust Bank

1. This is in reference to GTB closing down on account of grave liquidity problems. I understand that the Institute of Chartered accountants is looking into the audit done by the auditors at the instance of RBI . I would appreciate you grill the auditors of GTB in view of my links in para 2.
2. I am enclosing letter addressed to the vigilance department of GTB on 24-7-1999 and copy of same is enclosed in form of a link as under:-
a. http://www.gtbcore.blogspot.com

3. The various letters addressed to GTB at different times can be accessed by clicking various dates on the archives to the above weblog.
4. In this connection , I am annexing letter addressed to the auditor of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd and Flovin Plastics Private Ltd on 29-7-1999. The name of the auditor is Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh heading Kashiparekh and Associates. He did not reply the letter because of his guilty conscience.
5. Pursuant to the above letter I had written to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India , Delhi on 20-9-1999 and the copy marked to several committee members of the Instittute. The letter did not get noticed by the Institiute for the reasons unknown to me. This letter was written keeping in view the banking fraud involving Global Trust Bank.
6. Unfortunately, my whistle-blowing a banking fraud, a criminal defamation case has been filed by Core Health Care who has swindled the financial institutions to the tune of Rs 750 crores and an article of this company was published by Indian Express on 7-12-2002 under the heading of Great Bank Robbery. In order to veil banking fraud , I was subjected to five day police remand where by I can be either silenced or my concurrence taken in the back dates so that the banking fraud does not get exposed. This police remand was done in connivance with tacit help of the auditor Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh along with the others.
7. Now that GTB bubble has burst, in national interest as well as interest of the public at large that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India actively pursues the matter with the auditor Mr. H. Kashiparekh forthwith without extending any favour and mercy to him by subjecting him to gruelling test so as to teach lesson to him and also other chartered accountants in the country. It has become a fact that the Institute follows a very lax attitude and the Institute has lost its efficacy and purposely drags the issues for years so that person ultimately gives up fight.
8. In light of current developments in the country , I am drawing your attention with a view that you expose the auditor Mr. Kashiparekh , the management of Global Trust Bank and take measures to protect my interest in these companies as well as take criminal action on the auditor Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh for suppressing material facts as he and others made me pass through police remand and my family go through agony. This would ultimately serve as a lesson for other chartered accountants that they refrain from such tactics otherwise they would face stern action from the Institute.
9. At the same time , you through your auditors take firm action on the GTB management and compel them to divulge all truth in the matter failing which you take initiative to expose the auditor and GTB management publicly so that the image of the Institute of Chartered Accountants which has been tarnished gets restored and the people of India perceive that they can rely on Institute of Chartered Accountants.
10. I look forward to the official detailed findings of the Institute without offering any excuses for avoiding responsibility and mark a copy to media so that they can also know how effective you are in immediate follow-up action. It is needless to state that you will not blindly accept evasive reply of Mr. Kashiparekh but you shall ask him to adduce all documentary evidences in support of Mr. Jalundhwala in case he firmly believes that Mr Jatin Jalundhwala has all necessary authority and control to create charge on the immoveable property for Rs 12.5 crores on behalf of Rupmanglam and Flovin while he is compelled to furnish detailed reply to my letter addressed to him on 6-8-2002. His fax number is already appearing on the letter addressed to him.
11. Kindly look into the conduct of Mr. Saurabh Soparkar a chartered accountant (in the past) and at present High court advocate practicing in Gujarat High court . The necessary link is furnished herewith
http://www.barcoun.blogspot.com
I hope that the institute starts exposing scoundrel like mr. Saurabh Soparkar such so that the banks and the financial institutions do not get looted by his crooked means of protecting great bank robbers in the high court. I hope that the institute stops him delivering seminars in the institute till he gives satisfactory explanation. Coward and timid Mr. Soparkar has not been able to furnish any reply from Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala in form of written affidavit. i hope that he is also put to gruelling test so that such persons are punished heavily as he has failed in his duty to expose banking fraud in relation to GTB earlier.

12. I sincerely hope that the Institute maintain transparent and compassionate approach to the citizens of the country and not take a typical bureaucratic stand. The present letter is being marked to media so that they can also watch your performance too. I shall be passing on the information to various Member of Parliaments so that they can look into the conduct of Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh and Mr. Saurabh Soparkar in relation to GTB.

Thanking you.
Yours sincerely,

Pankaj S Mody

Annexures: Letter addressed to Hemant Kashiparekh on 29-7-99.
Letter addressed to the Institute of CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ON 20-9-1999.

ANNEXURE A:Letter to Mr. H. Kashiparekh on 29-7-1999

PANKAJ S MODY

DIRECTOR AND SHAREHOLDER OF RUPMANGLAM INVESTMENT PVT LTD

JULY 29,1999

BY SPEED POST AD

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

KASHIPAREKH AND ASSOCIATES,
AKSHAY APARTMENTS
Old High Court Lane
AHMEDABAD 380 009
Phone –079-26586770, fax 079- 26585770

Sir,

I am shareholder and director of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.

Your firm is auditor of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.

I would like to draw your attention that Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala jas registered charge on immoveable property of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd in favour of Global Trust Bank for granting term loan of Rs 12.5 crore loan to Core Health care ltd , a loss making company without having necessary authority and power of the Board of Directors as well as members of the company violating various provisions of company law.

It would not be out of place to mention that DhanyushyaFinancial Pvt Ltd through their advocate Shri Ashok D Shah had served the notice to me dated 12-12-1998 , whereby, I am accepted, confirmed and acknowledged as director of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd . Besides, Dhanyuhsya Financial Private Ltd has not put forth any claim that Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala is the legal director of Rupmangalm Investment Private Ltd.

In the reply given by my advocate , Shri Killol V Shelat dated 1-2-1999 to Dhanyushya ‘s advocate Shri Ashok D Shah , Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd has not dared to submit reply even though more than half a year has elapsed and has also not refuted to the claim of Shri Pankaj S Mody as director of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.

Moreover, Dhanyushya Fiancial Pvt Ltd has not cared to produce necessary evidence called for by me.-e.g. I had called for companya auditor’s report in relation to transfer of shares, if any and whether it is in accordance with the provisions of the company law pertaining to articles of association and memorandum of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd and as per the guide lines of Institute of Chartered accountants of India, New Delhi.

For your information, balance sheet pertaining to period 96-97 of Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd does not show acquisition of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd shares belonging to mody family.

Inspite of Mr. Jati Jalundhwala being aware at the time of Shri Killol V Shelat’s letter dated 1-2-1999 that he was not in a postion tofurnish evidence of ownership of shares owned by Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd , he goes ahead with mortgaging of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd which clearly show misrepresentation , concealment and suppression of material facts as well as show his malafide intentions.Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala is instrumental in putting shareholders of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd at irretrievable loss violating provisions of company law.

You being the auditor of the company owe responsibility to the members of the company, and initiate necessary action when company assets are being stripped and siphoned to such large extent.

As per Institute guidelines as per company law provisions you are to conduct detailed inquiry immediately in professional manner keeping in view the interest of shareholders of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd.

As a auditor of the company, you are to procure detailed evidence (by verifying minute books) , resolutions, notice for transfer of shares , compliance of articles 10 to 17 of articles of association and memorandum) from Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala , who is posing as director of the company and having necessary power of the board of directors and members of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd to mortgage property of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.

As the amount of fraud involved is ver large, I hope that your firm shall take the matter seriously and report findings.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

Pankaj S Mody

(DIRECTOR and SHAREHOLDER OF
RUPMANGLAM INVESTMENT PVT LTD)

Annexure B: Letter dated 20-9-1999 to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

PANKAJ S MODY
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
FLAT NO 4 , 2ND FLOOR
JANMANGAL FLAT
BRAHMAN MITRA MANDAL SOC
JALARAM MANDIR ROAD
AHMEDABAD 380 006

DATED : 20TH September 1999

THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA
P B NO 7100, INDRAPRASTHA MARG
NEW DELHI 110 002

DEAR SIR,

KIND ATTENTION: THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

REFERENCE: MY LETTER DATED 5TH MAY 1999 IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER 26-CA(43/W) 98 DATED 2ND NOVEMBER 1998

Please refer to my complaint letter dated 15th May 1998 to Shri Hemant Kashiparekh and my subsequent letter dated 5th May 1999 to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India New Delhi.
Even, after a lapse of four months in a serious matter such as income tax, I have not received any reply from the Institute, when the whole is moving in jet age and computer age. Such a careless attitude, on the part of the Institute of Chartered Accountants is deprecating.
Over and above , my complaint to Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh, I have an additional serious complaint against Kashiparekh and Associates (Headed by Shri Hemant Kashiparekh ), which covers detection of fraud which I came to know recently and they are turning a blind eye to the fraud.
PROFESSIONAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:-

a) Kashiparekh and Associates are auditors of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd (hence forth referred as RIPL), where I am a shareholder and a director, I am enclosing Xerox copy of balance sheet of RIPL for the year ended on 31-3-1994 depicting signature of Kashiparekh and Associates and my signature as director.
b) I have already signed audited balance sheets pertaining to period subsequent to March 31st 1994 and I need to have Xerox copy of balance sheets subsequent to March 31/3/94 –i.e. for the period ending 31/3/1995 , 31/3/96 , 31/3/97, 31/3/98 , 31/3/99 and in his reply dated August 27 1998, , he has made tacit confession that kashiparekh and Associates are still auditors of RIPL. This is because , he has specifically not denied the facts.
c) Shri Kashiparekh has suggested in his letter in August 1998 that I need to approach the Board of Directors of RIPL for information on RIPL which he is supposed to have (since he is aware that other directors are not going to extend cooperation and that would meet the needs of reply to the Institute and thereby escape the exposure to the Institute). There is no justification for him on his part, not to part information of the company such as balance sheet of the company, valuation of shares as long as I am shareholder and director of the company.
d) It is obligatory on the part of Kashiparekh and Associates and all concerned CA’s of Kashiparekh and Associates to furnish Xerox copy of balance sheets till it is proved contrary by Kahiparekh And Associates , that I am neither a director nor a shareholder by verifying the minute book records o the company as it is my right as director and shareholder of RIPL to ask for Balance sheet of the company.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF FRAUD:
v Only sometime back , I learnt that one Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala posing as director of RIPL has fraudulently mortgaged propery of RIPL and has obtained Rs 12.5 crores for successive loss making and highly indebted public ltd company (incidently , Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala is company secretary of this public limited company) without having authority of board of directors and shareholders of RIPL . The mortgage of property has taken subsequent to my letter to Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh and there is reason to believe that Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh has parted the information complaint against him to others which led to mortgaging of the propery and thereby stripping the assets of the company.
v Further , in my letter addressed by my advocate Shri Killol V Shelat dated 1-2-1999 to Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd (where Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala is director ), my advocate Shri Killol v shelat has called for auditor certificate for ownership of shares by statutory records such as minute book in particular of RIPL.
v You will find it very interesting to know that Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd has not cared to comply with the terms of notice quoted above for over six months for the reasons best known to them. I have already written a complaint letter to vigilance department of the concerned bank in the recent past and I understand that the bank has also started serious probe in the matter and I understand that startling results will come out in near future in which big heads will have to face the music for the legal acts and omissions deliberately done by them to extract huge loan of Rs 12.5 crores by pledging the property of the company not belonging to the mortgagor.
ROLE OF AUDITOR IN CASE OF DETECTION OF FRAUD:-
v Kashiparekh and Associates being the auditor and WATCH DOG of the company anf its shareholders i.e. RIPL , he needs to substantiate by inspecting the various records such as minute book of meeting of directors and shareholders – so as to how power and authority as been acquired by Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala to mortgage the property.
v The auditor is bound to provide complete evidence and cannot give any excuse not to supply complete evidence and cannot give any excuse not to furnish particulars to me , information as director and shareholder of the company. Any attempt by Kashiparekh and Associates, not to provide information and convey that, I should approach Board of Directors means that , he wants to evade duties and to shrug off the responsibility cast on him by the statute and create hindrance and thereby he tries to connive with the wrong –doers.
v Kashiparekh and Associates as well as Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh need to be advised that he should refrain from playing foul behind my back (taking other directors of the company who have abruptly turned uncooperative on account of undue pressure by Shri Hemant Kashiparekh ) to suit to his whims and his requirements. He is legally appointed auditor of the company and not the owner of the company and he is bound by his professional duties and responsibilities failing which, the Institute of Chartered Accoutants of India shall be duty bound to take appropriate action against Kashiparekh and associates, otherewise, the image of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India may get tarnished.
v In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is requested that Institute intervenes and exercises your good offices and direct Shri Hemant Kashiparekh to disclose and intimate to me complete information called by me with full supporting evidence so as to the circumstances in which Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala has acquired power to mortgage the property belonging to some one else. It will not be too much, if I ask your institut to bring to the notice of Shri Hemant Kashiparekh who is member of 7our association that failure to comply with the above mentioned particulars and as well as earlier request to supply copies of certain documents and information will result in such legal actions against Shri Hemant Kashiparekh at their cost and consequences .
v Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh needs to realise that he is not the owner of the company but he is the chartered accountant appointed by the company with the hope of straightforward and transparent approach towards the directors vis –a vis the interest of the company.

Looking to the seriousness and urgency of the problem, it is imperative to call for above information from Kashiparekh and Associates immediately so that I can prevent the asset of the company being stripped.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and take prompt follow-up action in the matter.

Yours truly,

Pankaj S Mody

Enclosure:- Extract of balance sheet of RIPL for the ending on 31-31-94 bearing signature. as director.

Address of auditor Kashiparekh and Associates,

Akhshay apartment , Old High court lane
Ahmedabad 380 009
Phone –079-26586770, fax 079- 26585770

Copy marked to S P Chajed , G Sitharaman, Amarjit Chopra, Ashok kumar Chandak

Do you Yahoo!?New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

Draft of Query letter to M/s Shah and Shah Associates-audtior of Dhanyshya Financial

2004-09-25T02:04:00.000-07:00

DRAFT OF QUERY Letter to Shah and Shah Associates,

501 ANIKET BUILDING

NEAR MUNCIPAL MARKET

NAVRANGPURA , AHMEDABAD

Sir,

Sub: Collecting information on creation of charge done by Dhanysuhya and others through GTB to give finance to Core Health care amounting to Rs 12.5 crores.

You are auditor of Dhanyushya Financial Private Ltd as well as Core Health care Ltd ( a public limited company) and Mr. Pankaj S Mody has written a letter addressed to you specifically on April 17.2002 .

Dhanyushya Financial has claimed ownership of shares belonging to Pankaj Mody and his family pertaining to Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd during the proceedings of City Civil suit 5827/2001 but has failed to produce the audited balance sheet of Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd showing the ownership of shares so as to claim subsidiary of Dhanyushya.

Kindly furnish following details:-

1. You are specifically called upon to furnish a copy of documentary evidence including a notarised copy of the audited balance sheet of Dhanyushya which shows that Dhanyushya is legal of owner of all shares of Rupmanglam and Flovin belonging to all mody family members.

2. In addition to above , you shall furnish notarised copy of minute book record showing transition of power from from mody family to Dhanysuhya / Mr. Jalundhwala . Incidently, Dhanyushya as well as Jaluundhwala , Core Health care and GTB have failed to furnish a copy of these minute book records in the city civil court.

3. In case you have valid reasons that Rupmanglam and Flovin do not happen to be the subsidiary of Dhanyushya , then kindly furnish your notarised hand written affidavit made before the court forthwith.

4. In case , you have reason to believe that Dhanyushya, Jatin Jalundhwala , Core health care and GTB along with Mr. Saurabh Soparkar and Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh has suppressed vital material facts , please do let us know whether you have taken any legal steps against all of them or not. In case , you have not taken such steps then , by this letter you shall immediately lodge a complaint against Dhanyushya , Jatin Jalundhwala , GTB , Saurabh Soparkar and Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh and Swati Soparkar for suppression of material facts in collusion with one another and thereby create charge on immoveable property owned by Rupmanglam and Flovin through GTB.

5. In case you have reason to believe that this your client and Jaludnhwala has committed banking fraud then do let us know what is wrong .

6. In case you remain silent to this letter, then you are a part of your tacit approval and you are part of conspiracy to help your client to illegally grab title of immoveable property owned by Rupmanglan and Flovin with your tacit support and thereby create illegal charge on the property.

7. In case, Dhanyushya and Jalundhwala has claimed ownership of shares of Rupmangalm ad Flvoin and on such basis they have initiated steps to amalgamate these companies with Span Medicals , then you are bound to notify to the various authorities including judiciary and also take appropriate legal action.

8. You as auditor of Core Health care are called upon to throw light on the issues not clarified by Mr. Sushil Handa of Core Health care in view of notice served by Mr. Pankaj Mody to Mr. Sushil Handa where he has remained silent to paragraphs 3,4 5,7 and 9 and his advocate A D Shah has stated that my client will deal with the same at the appropriate time. A copy of the notice dated 12-01-2000 served to Mr. Sushil Handa of Core Health Care is available on the internet link http://www.corehealthcare.blogspot.com. You being accountable to the share holder of Core Health care , you are called upon to furnish your observations as auditor forthwith.

9. In case , you have given any auditor certificate to GTB kindly furnish a copy of same to us as to what are your comments.

Your reply forthwith would be appreciated as your silence and/or evasive reply is likely to go against you because as a watchdog you are bound to expose such GTB related scandals and frauds. As a auditor of Core Health care which is a public limited company, it is your prime responsibility to the public as a auditor especially when Core health care has been alleged to siphon off large funds as per the of Great Bank robbery appearing on the above site. Kindly give your observations.

Yours sincerely,

===========================

annexure: Copy of earlier letter dated 17-04-2002

Pankaj S Mody
C/o Suresh S Mody
Janmangal Flats
40 BMM Society
Ahmedabad 380 006

April 17 ,2002

To

M/s Shah and Shah Associates
ANIKET, C.G Road
Ahmedabad

Sir,

At the outset, I request you to please excuse me for addressing this letter to you. However, you will please appreciate that circumstances have forced me to address this letter to you with the hope that you will extend your kind and constructive cooperation to me.

I understand that you are auditor of Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd where Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala happens to be one of the directors. In case, you are not aware, it may be necessary for you to learn the following facts.

v Mr. Jalundhwala has failed to produce ownership documents to the Court commissioner pertaining to Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd, inspite of written assurance to the court commissioner.
v Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd had approached Gujarat High court where Mr. Saurabh Soparkar appeared before the Honourable judge so that acts of directors and others are not brought to light which confirms that they lack confidence to establish ownership issue and their illegal acts.
v Both Jalundhwala and auditors of Rupmanglam and Flovin that is H. Kashiparekh are in collusion with each other and they have not given correct information to you when the transfer deeds and sharecertificates were made available to Dhanysuhya
v You are to look into various notices given by advocate Ashok D Shah to me in the past and the reply given by my advocate Shri K V Shelat to draw conclusions.

In view of above and it also concerns you as auditor , you may kindly prevail upon them to tell the truth to you about legal ownership of Rupmanglam and Flovin shares, etc and their hesitancy to give true picture to the court commissioner on time and you shall satisfy yourself minutely and thoroughly without any favour about ownership for the reasons you understand very well.

It is irony of the fate, that my chartered accountant and auditor, though duty bound are avoiding to cooperate with me to enable me to secure justice in the court of law. You will appreciate that they are refraining from discharging their legal duties towards me-client,for obvious reasons. It is under these circumstances that I am making special appeal request to your goodself to extend whole hearted cooperation in the matter.It would not be out of place mention here that, I have already started taking legal action against Indian –Andersons for their professional negligence and professional misconduct.

A line in reply you will oblige.

Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,

Pankaj Mody

CC:- To Shri Hemant Kashiparekh, for information. He is requested to still think of
Extending positive cooperation to the undersigned –to avoid any future embarrassing situations.

Draft of Query Letter to Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh auditor of Rupmanglam and Flovin

2004-09-25T02:00:00.000-07:00

Draft of letter addressed to Hemant Kashiparekh

Hemant Kashiparekh
Akshay Apartment
Old High court Lane
Ashram road
Ahmedabad
Telephone
Fax 079-26585770,

079-26586770

Subject : Creation of charge by GTB on immoveable property owned by Rupmanglam and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd.

1. We are conducting a reports in relation to GTB which had closed shutters and you as auditor of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd would have all the necessary information available with you in this regard as Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala has created charge on the immoveable property of (called Rupam Bunglow near Doctor House , parimal crossing) Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt ltd and the said charge was created first in 1998 and then renewed in March 1999 for Rs 12.5crores.
2. Both GTB as well as Jatin Jalundhwala and Dhanyushya financial has not adduced documentary evidence in form of your certificate as auditor of these two companies. In view of the above situation , kindly furnish following information forthwith as under:-
v Do you certify that Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala and Mr. Ameet Desai are sole legal directors of these two companies at the time of creation of charge in 1998.
v If so , how you have ascertained that they are legal directors. Furnish certified copy of minute book record to this effect from 1995 onwards.
v Kindly furnish detailed information as to who are the legal share holders of shares belonging to mody family members and all the necessary minutes passed in this regard and in case Dhanysuhya is the legal share holder of Rupmanglam and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd , kindly adduce evidence that the stamped share transfer deeds has been presented to Rupmanglam and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd within validity period of two months from the date on the transfer deeds and the same is correctly shown in the audited balance sheet of Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd. We understand that the shares have not been shown till 1997 by Dhanyushya while the income tax department has raised such demand for the year 1996 from some of the mody family members.
v Please also adduce complete details whether such share transfer was as per the provisions of articles of association and memorandum of the companies pertaining to Rupmanglam and Flovin.
v We also have a copy of your letter addressed to Mr. Saurabh Soparkar for consulting him on taxation matter as regards to Parbhulal Bhikhabhai Shah family. Do you confirm that you have written such letter and met Mr. Soparkar along with Mody family members for tax consultation as well as MOU drafting by Mr. Soparkar ?
v The copies of Mous furnished by Dhanyushya as well as Jatin Jalundhwala to the city civil court in suit 5827/2001 has shown presence of you as well as Mr. Saurabh Soparkar as escrow persons and both of you in possession of various documents and as long as both of you do not give your written consent they cannot be legal owners of these two companies.
v Have you entered into any correspondence with GTB, Jatin Jalundhwala , Saurabh Soparkar and whether you have received any correspondence from them and whether you have replied to them ? Kindly furnish your reply.
v Please let us know whether you performed role as an escrow person or not. If you and/or Mr Soparkar has not performed role as an escrow person , then kindly furnish a copy of detailed affidavit from Mr. Jatin jalundhwala in this regard as to how he has acquired legal ownership of the companies when both of you have not played role of escrow persons.
v We understand that Span Medicals is audited by you and as auditor of Span Medicals Ltd , whether you have approved amalgamation of Rupmanglam and Flovin Plastics Private Ltd carried out by Mrs. Soparkar. If so, please give a reply in this regard along with copy of the audited balance sheet as it happens to be a public limited company.

3. Mr. Mody has sent several letters (29-7-1999, 22-3-2002,1-4-2002,6-8-2002 ,etc) addressed to you. Kindly furnish a copy of detailed reply to his letters and notices in form of affidavit signed before a banker certifying as your true signature. You must be aware that Mr. Pankaj Mody has filed complaint against Mr. Soparkar and you can see the text by surfing on net by going to link http://www.barcoun.blogspot.com

4. It is imperative that you extend whole hearted support so that we can report banking frauds in relation to GTB so as to prevent such frauds happening again. I look forward to your reply forthwith. In case you remain silent inspite of your duty to speak in public interest in this regard then we may draw inference that you are tacitly associated in banking fraud in connection with GTB.

Thanking You.

Yours faithfully,

Link to some of the letters addressed to you

http://kashiparekh.blogspot.com/

Draft of Query letter to Bar Council of Gujarat

2004-09-25T01:55:00.000-07:00

DRAFT OF LETTER TO BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT
OPPOSITE GUJARAT HIGH COURT
SOLA-GANDHINAGAR HIGHWAY
AHMEDABAD
PHONE:- 27434073, 27433460
FAX:-91-79- 027433964

Reference link http://www.barcoun.blogspot.com

SIR,

This is in reference to the complaint filed by Mr. Pankaj Mody against practicing high court advocate Mr. Saurabh Soparkar to Bar Council of Gujarat in September 2002 while the copy of complaint despatched by Bar Council of Gujarat to Mr. Saurabh Soparkar in July 2003 that is after nine months of initial complaint and immediately after the adverse orders passed in appeal from order 176/2003 in June 2003. The complaint was registered as complaint no 38/2002 by you.

You must be aware that Global Trust Bank has collapsed recently and its management being shielded for obvious reasons by Reserve Bank of India by announcing seheme of merger with Oriental Bank of Commerce spontaneously. In this connection , we would quickly like to draw your attention to the following information and solicit your extensive and wholehearted support in exposing the management of GTB which has collapsed recently and exposing the management of Core Health care where the financial institutions have lost over Rs 750 crores .

1. Core Health care has robbed the financial institutions to the tune of Rs 750 crores while the shareholders have incurred heavy loss on account of market price plummeting from as high as 500 to less than Rs 10 /share while Mr. Sushil Handa continues to maintain a lavish personal life style.

2. Saurabh Soparkar and Amar Bhatt both have been representing Core Health care interest and appearing in the courts from time to time.

3. All of you would be aware by now that on behalf of Core Health care no one appeared in CRA 25 and 26/2002 including Mr. Saurabh Soparkar and Amar Bhattt who have acted as their advocates and appeared in their matters in Gujarat High Court .

4. All of you would be aware by now that in the appeal from order 176/2003 in 2003 , Mr. Mody has appeared as party in person demonstrating his supreme conviction in the matter and inspite of Mr. Soparkar having acknowledged receipt of Mr. Mody’s of allegations letter dated 10-5-2002 and 6-8-2002 , Mr. Soparkar has not dared to appear in the appeal from order 176/2003 even when he appeared as counsel in CRA25 and CRA26/2002 clearly demonstrates that he is timid and has guilty conscience .

5. All of you would be aware that no one had appeared on behalf of Global Trust Bank , Core Health care and Jatin Jalundhwala in CRA 25 and 26/2002 as well as in appeal from order 176/2003.

6. All of you are aware by this time, that Mr. Saurabh Soparkar has deliberately evaded to furnish stamped affidavit of Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala , Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh as referred in the original complaint.

7. All of you are aware that Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh had sought Mr. Soparkar’s appointment inspite of his denial.

8. All of you are aware that Mr. Saurabh Soparkar has failed to take any legal action against Mr. Mody even when he has financial resources , contacts and legal background. to defend his integrity and strength of character.

9. All of you are aware that even when no one had appeared on behalf of GTB, Core Health care, Jatin Jalundhwala , brief , non-speaking adverse orders have been passed in the appeal from order 176/2003.

10. All of you are aware that inspite of Mr. Soparkar’s name referred as an escrow person , he has not taken initiative to come forward and tell the judiciary that his name has been unnecessarily dragged in the banking fraud connected with GTB and it is necessary that indepth investigation is carried out by recording statement of Amar Bhatt , Dhanyushya Financial and Jatin Jalundhwala as well as GTB as to how they claim ownership of Rupmanglam Investment property and company to create charge on the immoveable property and taking legal action on GTB for creating an illegal charge on the assets.

In view of above and in the interest of social responsibility to protect the citizens of the society as well as the members of large lawyer community and their clients it would be prudent that the committee members of Bar Council of Gujarat takes initiative to expose GTB and employees of Core Health care and failure to do so would mean that the Bar Council of Gujarat does not give a damn for the society but wants to protect and shield acts of fraud of Mr. Soparkar and this would tarnish the image of Bar Council of Gujarat and the laywers in the eyes of public.

Your immediate views would be appreciated so as to ascertain transparency and openness as well as receptivity as well as strong urge and commitment to protect the interest of common public.

INITIAL EXPLANATION TO BE SOUGHT FROM GTB

2004-09-25T01:54:00.000-07:00

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

Message 1 Draft of Background information on GTB

2004-09-25T01:02:00.000-07:00

THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK

Inspector Gregory:"Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the nighttime"
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
From "The Adventure of Silver Blaze" by Arthur Conan Doyle

1. In order to expose banking fraud, a whistle was blown by Mr. Mody by writing a private and confidential letter on 24-7-1999 to the vigilance department of Global Trust Bank requesting them to examine and verify minutely as regards to charge created by Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala ( Employee of Core Health Care Ltd ) posing as director of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd in August 1998 for Rs 11.00 crores and subsequently renewed to Rs12.5crores in March 1999 and whether Jalundhwala had necessary power and authority of legal board of directors as well as shareholders of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd. A Letter was written to Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh , auditor of Rupmanglam on 29-7-1999 ( He did not respond because of his guilty conscience).

2. As per the contents of this letter to the Bank , the bank ought to have minutely examined on its own as well as experts on company law

a) the contents of the notice given by advocate Shri Ashok D Shah on 12-12-98 where mody family members have been accepted ,confirmed and acknowledged as directors of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd

b) that Dhanyushya has not dared to reply given on 1-2-99 by refuting the claim of Mr. Mody continuing as director of Rupmanglam as well as furnishing detailed auditor certificate from auditors of Rupmanglam and Dhanyushya showing that complete share ownership vests with Dhanyushya and full control of board directors vests with Mr. Jalundhwala and his colleague Mr. Ameet Desai and on account of such full authority and power from legal shareholders and board of directors , they had necessary power to execute charge on the immoveable property of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.

3. It was necessary for a private bank to depict a clean, honest and transparent approach. Mr. S.R.Krishnamurthy, Head of Global Trust Bank ought to have exhibited bank’s sincerity and integrity by furnishing to Mr. Mody, detailed findings of vigilance inquiry ( by making all the needed cross checked references as a conservative banker) report in form of detailed report signed by all the persons involved in preparing such report backed by certified copies of connected auditors and reply given by advocate A D Shah pursuant to reply given by advocate K V Shelat on 1-2-99.

4. Instead, Mr. Krishnamurthy gave a brief reply vide letter dated 21-10-1999 stating that Mr. Jalundhwala has necessary authority/power to create charge (but not refuting Mody’s presence as director and control of share ownership) and ended letter by desperately wanting to close the topic. On same day a criminal defamation suit was filed by Core Health care vide 3326/99 in the Metropolitan Court –15 against Mr. Mody and the contents of the case referred that the private and confidential letter addressed to GTB had been passed on to Core Health Care. AS Mr. Mody could not be silenced by this defamation case , Mr. Jalundhwala in a separate complaint managed with police to subject Mr. Mody to a five day police remand in December 1999.

5. The police authorities did not conduct all necessary as well as thorough minute detailed inquiries by making cross checked inquiries with GTB, the auditors of Rupmangalam, Dhanyushya and the advocate Mr. Ashok D Shah in view of contents of various notices by Ashok D Shah and reply given by Mr. Shelat. Instead all actions were taken with ulterior motive of subjecting Mr. Mody succumbind under Police pressure, threat and torture during Police remand.

6. GTB failed to give reply to the notice given by Mr. Mody through his advocate on 21-12-99 where by once again all necessary certificates from the auditors were called.

7. Mr. Mody filed city civil suit 5827/2001 in Bhadra court in December 2001 and obtained temporary injunction on GTB , Dhanyushya , Jalundhwala ,Core Health care along with appointment of Court commissioner to take documents on avaljapti. GTB furnished

(a) copy of charge register being maintained by them and as per the details furnished therein - the charge register did not depict that Mody family members had resigned as directors of Rupmanglam

(b) furnished copy of Mr. Jalundhwala as additional director of Rupmangalam ( which by itself does not confirm that he continued as director of the company on the date of creation of charge ). Mr. Jalundhwala inspite of his written assurance that he will furnish details to the court commissioner , he did not do so - showing that he had guilty consicence. The court commissioner did not pursue the matter for obvious reasons.

8. Dhanyushya filed civil revision appeal in Gujarat High court so as to lift injunction and to avoid court commissioner making further inquiries. GTB could have seized God sent opportunity to demand complete documentation of authority to execute documents and thereby could have forced complete recovery of loan along with interest from them –but they did not appear in the High court at all in civil revision appeal.

9. The Gujarat High Court had given directions to all of them on April 15th 02 that all of them shall furnish all documentary evidence latest by April 26 2002 and the matter would be decided by June 30,2002. Inspite of their noncompliance to furnish detailed documentary evidence by that date, the city civil court court permitted to accept piecemeal ,useless information as late as December 2002 from GTB while lifting the injunction in the original suit 5827/2001 which is still pending in the court.

10. GTB has failed to take drastic action against Dhanyushya , Jalundhwala and Core Health care inspite of Mr. Mody’s letter dated 19-5-04 and document of Lease Pendence filed as referred in his letter on 14-6=04 depicting that the city civil suit 5827/2001 is pending in the city civil court.

11. The fact that Core health care is not remaining present and not producing Mr. Jalundhwala and officers of GTB in the criminal defamation case 3326/99 shows that they do not have necessary conviction against me but a ploy is used by bank and Core Health care to silence Mr. Mody.

12. When Mr. Mody has represented to the Chief Minister of Gujarat that Core Health care are neither appearing nor pursuing the matter in the Metropolitan court in defamation case and Mr. Mody firmly asserts that this group had made false presentation to Police to subject Mr. Mody to remand and therefore it becomes the responsibility of Government of Gujarat through Police and the Metropolitan Court to conduct thorough inquiries on these persons so as to stop such frivolous cases and so also to catch hold of officers of GTB colluding with this group. It becomes more relevant , especially when GTB recently had to close shutters.

13. When various authorities do not want to initiate detailed inquiry by recording the statements before the magistrate in open court , would it not mean that they want to encourage such practices in the state so as to help great bank robbers looting the banks in collusion with Bank officers, connected advocates and auditors ??? Can Chief Minister of Gujarat answer why his administration is not taking initiative to look into the matter promptly inspite of the assurance given by his Principal Secretary Mr. Hasmukh Adhia in his email to Mr. Mody In June 2004??? Does Chief Minsiter realize that Mr. Mody can be harassed and tortured once again ??? Does he realize that on account of his whistle blowing he and his family has undergone harassment from the income tax department ???

14. The President of India in his address has mentioned that even for educated persons , getting justice has become very expensive as well as very complex and there is urgent need to find solutions to this issues. Does the honorable judges of Gujarat High court want to take initiative to conduct necessary inquiry on its own to protect the atrocities that Mr. Mody and his family faced???

15. The contents of the letters to Global Trust Bank are available on www.gtbcore.blogspot.com

16. The time is right to draw lessons from famous Sherlock Holmes story The Sliver Blaze. "The Dog that did not bark" AND THE CITIZENS QUESTION - ALL THOSE DOGS THAT DID NOT BARK WHEN MR MODY BLEW WHISTLE ON GTB AS BACK AS 1999 !!!!!

TEXT OF HIGH COURT ORDER IN CRA25 AND CRA26 DATED 15-4-2002

2002-04-15T13:46:00.000-07:00

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADCIVIL REVISION APPLICATION Nos 25 & 26 of 2002For Approval and Signature:Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.K.TRIVEDI============================================================1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YESto see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO
@DHANUSHYA FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITEDVersusPANKAJ SURESHCHANDRA MODI--------------------------------------------------------------Appearance:Mr.Soparkar,learned senior advocate withMR AMAR N BHATT for Petitioners ( Dhanyushya Financial Pvt Ltd)

MB GANDHI for Respondent No. 1 (Pankaj S Mody)RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 2-4--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.K.TRIVEDI
Date of decision: 15/04/2002COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT

1. Heard Mr.Soparkar,learned senior advocate forMr.Bhatt for the petitioner - original defendant No.1 andMr.Gandhi, learned advocate, who appeared for respondent- original plaintiff. During hearing I was taken throughthe orders under challenge passed by the learned ChamberJudge, Court No.12 below Application Exh.5 in Civil SuitNo.5827/2001 on 31.12.2001 which is under challenge inRevision Application No.26/2002 and the order passedbelow Application Exh.5 on the same Suit on 28.12.2001which is under challenge in Revision ApplicationNo.25/2002. While taking me through the petitions andthe orders under challenge, with the documents attachedthereto, it is the contention of Mr.Soparkar that thelearned Chamber Judge has committed error in allowing theaforesaid Application ex parte. He has also taken me through the Application Exh.5 wherein the plaintiff hasprayed for direction from the trial court. By the orderdated 28.12.2001, the learned Chamber Judge has appointedCommissioner to prepare the map and to do localinspection/inventory at the suit site after giving priorwritten intimation to both the parties and the plaintiffwas directed to deposit a sum of Rs.750/--. It is thecontention of Mr.Soparkar that the learned Chamber Judgehas committed error while passing such order, which,according to him, is required to be set aside. Whiletaking me through the order dated 31.12.2001, it is thecontention of Mr.Soparkar that the learned Chamber Judgewas not right in giving direction ex parte and thelearned Chamber Judge has directed to maintain status quoof the suit property as on the date of the order i.e. on31.12.2001.

2. Mr.Gandhi appearing for the respondent plaintiffhas also vehemently urged that the Revision Applicationsare not maintainable and further that this court shouldnot entertain such Revision Applications and that thepetitioner - defendant has to approach the learnedChamber Judge and further that there is no jurisdictionalerror for which this court is required to interfere withsuch orders.3. Considered the submissions made before me and thefact that the order under challenge is an ex parte orderpassed by the learned Chamber judge wherein thedefendants were directed to furnish particulars ashighlighted in the letter dated 29.7.99 as well as inrespect of their right and title over the suit property.Petitioner has approached this court directly by fillingthese Revision Applications and this court has whileissuing rule protected the petitioner defendant bygranting interim relief as prayed for by the petitionerin respective Revision Applications and the same wereextended from time to time, which is in force till today.4. Accordingly without expressing anything on thecontentions raised before me by the counsel appearing inthe matters, it will be in the fitness of things todirect the petitioner - defendant to approach the learnedChamber Judge and the learned Chamber Judge isaccordingly directed to decide afresh the application ofthe plaintiff in accordance with law. As the interimrelief is operating till today, the order of status quogranted earlier shall continue till the learned ChamberJudge decides the application Exh.5. The petitionerdefendant shall file reply to the Application Exh.5 on orbefore 26.4.2002 with direction that the same should beserved to the plaintiff and the Rejoinder, if any isrequired, the plaintiff shall file the same within 2weeks thereafter and the learned Chamber Judge isdirected to dispose of the application Exh.5 on or before30.6.2002 in accordance with law, without beinginfluenced by the orders passed from time to time.Accordingly the orders passed by the learned ChamberJudge are set aside. Both the Revision Applications areaccordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute in eachmatter in the above terms. No order as to costs.(D.K.Trivedi,J)arg

ORDERS UNDER EXHIBIT-5 ON 31-12-2001 IN CIVIL SUIT 5827/2001

2001-12-31T13:58:00.000-08:00

ORDER BELOW- EXHIBIT-5

The plaintiff has alleged that the chartered acccountant and the auditor of the company namely Rupmanglam Investment Private Limited has committed fowl play and handed over some papers to the defendant no 2 inspite of the fact that the condition of Memorandum of undertaking executed between two parties in operation were not fulfilled. The plainitiff has ,way back in July 1999 , asked for several clarifications from said auditor and remind that none of the concerned parties have dared to disclose the relevant information and documents and therefore, the plaintiff has initiated proper proceedings before the Registrar of Companies regarding declaration of his status as a Director of the company in question. At present, plainitiff apprehends that the defendants are trying to dispose of the property at the minimum price under the pretext of its mortgage with the defendant no 4. and may get undue advantage in such transaction wherein his interest is required to be protected since he has initiated proceedings with regard to its status in the company. In the circumstances, the defendant are hereby directed to produce on record all relevant information and details supported by the documentary evidence as asked for by the plaintiff in its letter 29-7-1999 as well as about their rights and title over the suit property and till then they are directed to maintain the status quo of the suit property as on today. Separate order for appointment of the commissioner is passed.

DATE 31-12-2001 S.G. SHAH
CHAMBER JUDGE