SUMMARISED ISSUES ON EMAIL TO OBC
contents of ANNEXURE A OF EMAIL DATED 5-5-05 TO OBC:-
ENCLOSURE A
1. At the time of appraisal , GTB officers would have carried out minute verification as part of due diligence exercise as to why Jatin Jalundhwala would want to create charge on immoveable property so that GTB decided extend Rs 12.5 crores to Core Health care especially when it would not derive any benefit to the shareholders of Rupmangalam and Flovin.
2. GTB officers at the time of appraisal as part of due diligence exercise would have carried out search of ROC records by paying search fees with ROC prior to August 1998. They would have further observed that Jatin Jalundhwala had not filed any audited balances sheet pertaining to Rupmangalm Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd under his signature as director along with the signature of the auditors Kashiparekhs. This due diligence exercise has been deliberately avoided in collusion with each other.
ENCLOSURE A
1. At the time of appraisal , GTB officers would have carried out minute verification as part of due diligence exercise as to why Jatin Jalundhwala would want to create charge on immoveable property so that GTB decided extend Rs 12.5 crores to Core Health care especially when it would not derive any benefit to the shareholders of Rupmangalam and Flovin.
2. GTB officers at the time of appraisal as part of due diligence exercise would have carried out search of ROC records by paying search fees with ROC prior to August 1998. They would have further observed that Jatin Jalundhwala had not filed any audited balances sheet pertaining to Rupmangalm Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd under his signature as director along with the signature of the auditors Kashiparekhs. This due diligence exercise has been deliberately avoided in collusion with each other.
3. GTB officers at the time of appraisal in 1998 would have noticed from ROC records that Dhanyushaya had not submitted any balance sheet which showed that they were the sole shareholders of Rupmanglam and Flovin so as to allow legal directors of Rupmangalam and Flovin to create legal charge on immoveable property . GTB officers as well as OBC management would have such legal knowledge that without concurrence of the legal shareholders it is not possible to create charge on immoveable property. Neither GTB officials nor OBC bank officials can plead ignorance and/or play blind.
4. The GTB management has openly flouted the stay orders passed by the Revenue department of Gujarat Government at the time of creation of charge in August 1998 for Rs 11 crores as evident from the record of right 7/12. The bank documentation furnished in the court proceedings does not show that the stay was lifted by revenue department at the time of creation of charge and this shows that Jatin Jalundhwala had colluded with the management of GTB to create charge on immoveable property illegally as well as fraudulently.
5. It has been standard and prudent practice of any conservative banker to collect the background history by going through the papers such as memorandum of understandings and seek detailed clarification as to when Mr. Jalundhwala has received the documents of ownership from the escrow persons consisting of Hemant Kashiparekh and Saurabh Soparkar along with their written notarized affidavit especially when the amount of loan exceeds Rs 10 crores. This has not been done by the officers of Global Trust Bank at the time of appraisal.
6. GTB officials as well as OBC officials cannot take a stand of ignorance that the presence of any additional director gives an automatic right to the so called additional director to continue beyond next annual general meeting.
5. It has been standard and prudent practice of any conservative banker to collect the background history by going through the papers such as memorandum of understandings and seek detailed clarification as to when Mr. Jalundhwala has received the documents of ownership from the escrow persons consisting of Hemant Kashiparekh and Saurabh Soparkar along with their written notarized affidavit especially when the amount of loan exceeds Rs 10 crores. This has not been done by the officers of Global Trust Bank at the time of appraisal.
6. GTB officials as well as OBC officials cannot take a stand of ignorance that the presence of any additional director gives an automatic right to the so called additional director to continue beyond next annual general meeting.
7. GTB officials as well as OBC officials would have atleast sense to understand that once the term of additional director expires then such so called additional director after his term as additional director does not have any authority to accept resignation of any director. Neither GTB officials nor OBC officials can plead ignorance to such fundamentals.
8. GTB officials would have known from the court proceedings that Jatin Jalundhwala and Dhanyushaya has failed to furnish various documents to the court commissioner as well as to the Judiciary following documents as referred in para nine of the Appeal from order:- http://www.afo176.blogspot.com/
· Statutory records such as minute book of directors and shareholders of Rupmanglam .
· Share certificates pertaining to Rupmangalam .
· Share transfer forms pertaining to Rupmangalam
· Share Registar of Rupmangalam
· Audited balance sheet from 96 onwards in relation to Rupmangalm along with acknowledgment of income tax returns filed and assessment orders.
· 37I permission from the income tax department in relation to the property owned by Rupmangalam in particular.
· Copy of all documents furnished to the Registrar of companies along with copy of acknowledgment from 31-3-95.
· All correspondence with directors and shareholders .
· All correspondence and documents for availing facility from defendant 4.
· Auditor report for share transfer in respect of shares of Rupmangalam Investment
· Audited balance sheet of defendant 1 from 1996 onwards till date.
· Statutory records such as minute book of directors and shareholders of Rupmanglam .
· Share certificates pertaining to Rupmangalam .
· Share transfer forms pertaining to Rupmangalam
· Share Registar of Rupmangalam
· Audited balance sheet from 96 onwards in relation to Rupmangalm along with acknowledgment of income tax returns filed and assessment orders.
· 37I permission from the income tax department in relation to the property owned by Rupmangalam in particular.
· Copy of all documents furnished to the Registrar of companies along with copy of acknowledgment from 31-3-95.
· All correspondence with directors and shareholders .
· All correspondence and documents for availing facility from defendant 4.
· Auditor report for share transfer in respect of shares of Rupmangalam Investment
· Audited balance sheet of defendant 1 from 1996 onwards till date.
9. The management of OBC would furnish a detailed explanation of written arguments furnished by the undersigned to the judiciary so as to impart clarity of facts.
http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/10/written-arguments-presented-by-mr-mody.html
http://mediagtbpsm.blogspot.com/2004/10/written-arguments-presented-by-mr-mody.html
10. GTB management at the time of appraisal facilites in 1998 is supposed to have studied Core Health Care balance sheets and is supposed to have observed that a case was filed against for recovery of dues and hence, GTB manangement must not have sanctioned term loan facilities at all to Core Health care Ltd.( Directors report of Core Health care for 96-97 referred that … " One of the lenders also took harsh action by initiating legal proceedings." Oriental Bank of officers ought to have taken criminal action against all the concerned officials of GTB in sanctioning the facilities of Core Healthcare and OBC management cannot be a mute spectator and turn a blind eye . Simultaneously OBC has to take criminal action against directors of Core Health care for colluding with the management of GTB.
11. GTB management of the time of appraisal facilities in 1998 must have observed that Core Healthcare had advanced interest-free loan to Technology Finance having Jatin Jalundhwala as the director of Technology Finance. Any prudent and conservative banker would have questioned the Board of Directors of Core Healthcare as to the reason why they are seeking interest bearing loan from GTB where Jatin Jalundhwala is signatory to creation of charge. This establishes collusion of GTB management with this group that GTB is helping them to siphon the funds to be utilized for the purpose other then those for which the loan was sought to be begged for. It would be apparent from the notice given to Core Healthcare on 12-1-2000 The following internet link shows the details :-
http://corehealthcare.blogspot.com/2004/08/notice-served-to-core-health-care-on.html.
http://corehealthcare.blogspot.com/2004/08/notice-served-to-core-health-care-on.html.
The extract of reply given by their advocate A D Shah makes it abundantly clear that that Core Healthcare do not have any valid explanation to offer. The reply extract is in form of a comment beneath the notice.
12. GTB management has not been able to explain in their letter dated 21-10-1999 as to the evidence of transfer of constructed portion of bunglow to Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd claimed to be acquired by Dhanyushya Financial as referred in the letter addressed by Pankaj Mody on 24-7-1999 by producing registered sale deed document of constructed portion of bunglow in favour of Dhanyushya.
13. GTB while creating charge on assets of Rupmanglam and Flovin has not deposited the original title deeds of both the companies as per the particulars of documentation furnished to the judiciary and hence the connected GTB officers as well as Jatin JATIN JALUNDHWALA are liable for criminal action for colluding with each other. Why Oriental Bank of Commerce is not taking criminal action on Jatin Jalundhwala who is front man of Sushil Handa. By subjecting Jatin Jalundhwala to close interrogation before police and /or judiciary , various siphoning of funds by Sushil Handa can be found out as Jalundhwala being key employee of Core Health care.
14. How come GTB management at the time of sanction has not obtained auditors report (Kashiparekhs) in form of affidavit confirming that at the time of alleged transfer of companies that , Jatin Jalundhwala and Ameet Desai were truly holding directorship to accept the so called resignation of various mody family members. GTB has not furnished such evidence inspite of notice dated 21-12-99 by the undersigned.
15. It is necessary that OBC shall furnish detailed vigilance findings to the letter addressed to GTB on 24-7-1999. The same is appended here in the form of link as under:-
16. It is necessary that OBC furnishes a detailed reply to the letter addressed by undersigned on 19-5-2004 as referred in the link as under:-
17. GTB as well as Oriental Bank of Commerce cannot blindly and conveniently accept the so called judicial orders of amalgamation of various companies with Span Medicals. It is supposed to collect and verify all the supporting evidences from Jatin Jalundhwala while recording statement of directors of Span Medicals, Mrs Swati Soparkar –advocate who followed the procedures of amalgamation while taking written joint affidavits from Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala and the escrow persons , Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh and Mr. Saurabh Soparkar. When the officers of Oriental Bank of Commerce fails to take such action inspite of knowledge of court proceedings as well as my correspondence to them , then it clearly means that that the management of OBC is deliberately want to infringe on my rights by illegally encroaching and trespassing the immoveable property. In absence of such minute verification it is not ethical as well as legal to grab the possession of immoveable property on pretext that the same is exclusively owned by so called Span Medicals. This shows collusion of officers of Oriental Bank of Commerce to openly carry the loot.
18. What prevents OBC to take criminal action on Sushil Handa and Jatin Jalundhwala to attend the criminal defamation case 3326/99 launched by Core Health care in light of email to OBC on 27-12-2004 and thereby compel them to arrange other collateral while handing over the possession to the undersigned in light of the email sent to OBC on 27-12-2004.
19. You shall furnish copy of all the documents filed with ROC as regards to Core Health care , Dhanyushya Financial , Rupmangalam, Flovin, Span Medicals from 1996 onwards referring the details of document number and the date of creation of document with ROC.
20. GTB management has not demanded from Dhanyushya and Jalundhwala 37-I permission under Chapter XX- C OF THE Income Tax Act for showing constructed portion of bunglow property in Dhanyushaya which exclusively belonged to Rupmanglam as per the charge documents created and filed with ROC. In absence of 37-I permission the transfer of constructed property to Dhanyushya is void ab initio.
==================================================================
content of para 5 of email dated 3-6-05 to OBC:-
5. Kindly furnish detailed reply to the following to start with :-
==================================================================
content of para 5 of email dated 3-6-05 to OBC:-
5. Kindly furnish detailed reply to the following to start with :-
(a) That GTB has failed to furnish documentary evidence as to how Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala and Mr. Ameet Sesai continue as directors of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd after EXPIRY OF TERM AS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR .GTB has failed to furnish any search report from ROC that the additional directorship of Jalundhwala and Desai stands renewed with written consent of Mody family directors and GTB management cannot plead ignorance that they do not know about such basic understanding while sanctioning facility.
(b) The copy of title deed register furnished to the court commissioner and the memorandum of entry furnished to the undersigned does not reflect any supporting documentary evidence that Mody family members have CEASED TO be directors of Rupmnglam Investment Pvt Ltd.
(c) The copy of title deeds registar and Memorandum of Entry furnished by GTB does not reflect ANY supporting evidence that Jatin Jalundhwala and Ameet Desai are SOLE, EXCLUSIVE directors of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.
(d) That GTB has failed to include certificate from the auditors of Rupmanglam (Kashiparekhs ) that Ameet Desai and Jatin Jalundhwala are the SOLE Directors of Rupmanglam to create charge on immoveable property of Rupmanglam.
(e) That GTB has failed to furnish their internal appraisal report showing documentary evidence that Dhanyusha Financial , Jalundhwala and Core Health Care has received written confirmation from the ESCROW PERSONS CONSISTING OF Soparkar and Kashiparekh (as referred in the MOU ) that they have officially have handed over simultaneously all the documents as well as physical possession after obtaining no objection certificate from various mody family members including Pankaj Mody as far as property owned by Rupmangalam and Flovin .
(f) That GTB has failed to obtain concurrence from the auditors of Rupmangalam that Jalundhwala has all necessary authority and power to create charge on behalf of Legal shareholders and legal directors of Rupmangalam Investment Pvt ltd and such concurrence is not reflected in the tittle deeds register furnished by GTB to the court commissioner and the same is not reflected in copy of memorandum of entry furnished to Pankaj Mody .
(g) That GTB has failed to show any documentary evidence in title deeds registar as well as Memorandum of entry that the stay of Revenue department has been lifted at the time of creation of charge in March 1999.
(b) The copy of title deed register furnished to the court commissioner and the memorandum of entry furnished to the undersigned does not reflect any supporting documentary evidence that Mody family members have CEASED TO be directors of Rupmnglam Investment Pvt Ltd.
(c) The copy of title deeds registar and Memorandum of Entry furnished by GTB does not reflect ANY supporting evidence that Jatin Jalundhwala and Ameet Desai are SOLE, EXCLUSIVE directors of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd.
(d) That GTB has failed to include certificate from the auditors of Rupmanglam (Kashiparekhs ) that Ameet Desai and Jatin Jalundhwala are the SOLE Directors of Rupmanglam to create charge on immoveable property of Rupmanglam.
(e) That GTB has failed to furnish their internal appraisal report showing documentary evidence that Dhanyusha Financial , Jalundhwala and Core Health Care has received written confirmation from the ESCROW PERSONS CONSISTING OF Soparkar and Kashiparekh (as referred in the MOU ) that they have officially have handed over simultaneously all the documents as well as physical possession after obtaining no objection certificate from various mody family members including Pankaj Mody as far as property owned by Rupmangalam and Flovin .
(f) That GTB has failed to obtain concurrence from the auditors of Rupmangalam that Jalundhwala has all necessary authority and power to create charge on behalf of Legal shareholders and legal directors of Rupmangalam Investment Pvt ltd and such concurrence is not reflected in the tittle deeds register furnished by GTB to the court commissioner and the same is not reflected in copy of memorandum of entry furnished to Pankaj Mody .
(g) That GTB has failed to show any documentary evidence in title deeds registar as well as Memorandum of entry that the stay of Revenue department has been lifted at the time of creation of charge in March 1999.
(h) That GTB has failed to deposit original sale document in favour of Shri Parbhulal Bhikhabhai Shah with the authorities while creating charge of Rupmangalm and Flovin confirming that charge creation was fraudulent.
(i) That GTB at the time of creation of charge has failed to adduce (i) sale deed document between Rupmnaglam and Dhanyuhsya that constructed portion of bunglow exclusively belonging to Rupmangalm has been sold to Dhanyushya (ii) sale deed document between Rupmanglam and Flovin that constructed portion of bunglow exclusively belonging to Rupmangalm has been sold to Flovin.
(j) That GTB has failed to furnish documentary evidence that GTB HAS thoroughly and minutely verified own their own that Span Medicals is the sole and exclusive legal owners of Final Plot 768/10 instead of blindly believing on any certificates.
(k) That GTB has failed to give any reasoning as why the sanction of loan was enhanced from Rs 11 crores to Rs 12.5 crores within six months.
(l) That GTB has failed to give reasons as to why they chose to give loan to Core Healthcare especially when the balance sheet of Core Health care depicted that one another bank had filed case against Core health care and the Core health care was already facing liquidity problems.
(m) That GTB has failed to give any explanation as to the reason why they wanted to extend facility to Core Healthcare with support of Jalundhwala when Core Healthcare extended approximately Rs 39 crores non-interest bearing loan to its subsidiary Technology Finance with Jalundhwala as its director .
(n) That GTB and OBC has failed to prove the legality of creation of charge by compelling Core healthcare and Jalundhwala and GTB officials to adduce necessary evidence in the criminal defamation case 3326/99 in light of correspondence from time to time.
(o) That GTB has not furnished detailed INTERNAL findings and written statements in light of letter addressed to them on 24-7-99.
posted by WHISTLE | 9:36 AM
|
0 comments
