25% OFF on all LCI Courses. Offer valid till 5th Oct. Use Code: DUS25
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Meha Harish (Proprietor)     14 October 2013

Legal aid for writ petition in mumbai high court

We are an SSI-EOU Pvt Ltd Co and had taken working capital and machinery term loans from a Public Sector Bank. Before and after NPA, we had never defaulted in Interest / EMI / bill discounting payments and balances in all accounts were within sanctioned limits. Bank claims it classifed our accounts as NPA on a certain date in reply to complaint filed at Banking Ombudsman on illegal NPA cclassification, illegal Srafaesi act actions, misapprpriation and siphoning of funds, etc. In fact, bank did not classify the account as NPA on 07.04.07, the date it has alleged to Banking Ombudsman and later at DRT. Accounts statement do no show NPA classification on that date or 2 months thereafter as claimed by bank. After investigation, in July'09, Banking Ombudsman recorded its observation in writing (I have copy) stating that: 

  1. "Bank reitrates that NPA classification was as per its internal guidelines and therefore has all rights to take recovery action under Srafaesi act".
  2. There is total failure on part of bank towards compling with Lenders Liability in Fair Practices Code and its own adopted Code of conduct before abruptly taking action under Sarfaesi act.
  3. Total failure on part of Bank in proper management of accounts, not upgrading accounts to standard, ETC etc.
  4. The Chairman of ther bank should be asked to intervene since Brancha nd Mumbai Zonal officials have failed to address the grivances of the complainaint.

Bank has, under oath, repeated given false, contradictory and inflated Principal and interst amounts in their wiritten statements to Banking Ombudsman, RBI and also affidavits filed at DRT.

Before Ombudsman could issue his award / order, The bank filed OA at DRT in Aug09 for recovery for false and inflated Principal and interest amounts and asked the Banking Ombudsman to stop further intervention. Ombudsman and its Appelant authority complied and closed the complaint on this ground and also stated that the matter is complicated and needs elaborate investigation.

Since 2009, arguments at DRT, Mumbai have not commenced due to repeated adjournments by Bank.

Bank is threatening to sell under Sarfaesi act the Flat of Directors who have been Personal guarantors and also the flat against which the Directors have taken Personal Home Loan from same branch was offered as 'continuing security' to Business loan. The Persoanl Home Loan also has been classfied as NPA because payments being made on this account were being adjusted towards dues of the company.

Out of total Bank's exposure of 87 Lakhs on alleged NPA date, within 15 months -The principal borrower and its guarantors have paid 62 Lkahs and bank has received 30 Lakhs from ECGC. Bank filed OA to recover ECGC claim received amounts from Principal borrower and his guarantors to repay ECGC.

Now I plan to file writ in High court on following grounds:

  1. Since we were never a defaulter before and after NPA, and the bank has received its entire dues, we should not be subjected to fight unwarranted and expensive legal battle at DRT or be persecuted under Sarfaesi act.
  2. Bank is wanting recovery of ECGC claim received amounts from the guarantors since the borrowing units net worth is negative and has incurred huge losses of over Rs. 1 crore because of bank induced sickness and enforced closure inspite of the unit never ever having defaulted in any loan repayments, before and after NPA.
  3. The misappropriated and siphoned amounts were adequated to clear all interest dues of Bank upto 5 moths after alleged NPA. ECGC was defrauded into paying the guarantee amounts by illegally proclaiming us chronic defaulters. ECGC officials connived with Bank officlas and paid the claims in flat 10 days without doing proper audit, not following claim settlement guidelines and without checking with Princiapal borrower as to reasons of default and / or rehabilitation measures, etc.
  4. Bank is taking vindictive actions because we filed series of complaints with banking Ombudsman, RBI, Ministry of Finanace, etc and also to save its officlas from the arms of the law and recovering from guarantors the Principal and interest losses incurred by it due to fraudulant acts of its own officials - misappropriation and siphoning funds, defarauding ECGC (Public exchequere), etc.
  5. Constitutional right to shelter. Bank should not take action under sarfaesi act to sell the flat of the directors till the matter is fully adjudicated.
  6. Due to long drawn and expensive litigation cost and no source of income the guarnators - the directors of the sick SSI unit are paupers and living out of hand outs from family and freinds. 

I am looking for services of a lawyer, who would be prepared, under written agreement if required, to accept his fees once the securities are released. I am prepared to pay the lawyer handsomely, but only after I receive compensation and or get my flat released and pay from its sale proceeds.

Alternately, please advise if there are other forums for legal aid.

Thank you all in advance.


 2 Replies

Meha Harish (Proprietor)     14 October 2013

My Mobile No: 0 9769799879

Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com)     14 October 2013

You should contact a lawyer personally

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query