Shri Jaswant Singh Ji,

Finance Minister of India,

North Block,

In todays Newspapers it appears that you have told the Lok Sabha on Thursaday i.e. on 21^st November 2002 that the Government is planing to bring forward a lenders liability Bill to ensure that lenders, too observed certain norms and were not subjective and selective in dealing with borrowers.

In this respect I would like to call your kind attention in respect of one very important issue relates to general fruad applied by the Banks to put the litigations within the Law of Limitation committing crime.

Earlier the Reserve Bank of India has decided to provide more powers to Banks to deal with wilful defaulters. Now the Lok Sabha approved Securitisation and reconstruction of financial asseta and enforcement of security interest Bill. This is a right step in right direction. But till now in respect of wilful wrong doing, if applied by the Banks, there is no right guidelines or Law. I would like to refer one such exemple. 

For a long period, with my heart, I consider that the State Bank of India is my own Bank. But, subsequently what I have seen that Bank is playing in the hands of others just to ruin me. This fact, were placed on record by me. Such behaviour adopted by the State Bank of India, particularly when Bank has considered me as a dynamic entrepreneur. Fact remains that my unit was closed due to a mistake on the part of the Bank.

The background of the matter is that in fact I have raised strong voice in Public Interest, against monopoly policies of few Multinational Aluminium producers. When I was raising effective voice against anti-public policy of few Aluminium producers, at least one producer used its relations with the State bank to pressurise me. Resultantly, taking advantage of one of my old letter, State Bank of India, Howrah Branch, (West Bengal) by its Letter No. SIB-20-2210 dated June 28, 1974, ask me to met with one Mr. B. B. Chatterjee, one of the then Senior Officer of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.

The important date in my matter is 16^th June 1979. On this day the Loan limit in favour of my SSI unit was Rs.2,00,000/-, which means State Bank of India agreed and accepted on principle that the minimum adequate requirement of the fund, for economical viability of my unit-, was Rs.2,00,000/-. On the said date i.e. 16^th June 1979 outstanding in account of my unit was just about Rs. 1,29,660/- + Rs.10,000/- in odd and Bank also promised me that Bank will honor a Cheque of Rs.41,691=32, which then were already issued in favour of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. But when Cheque was presented, before the Bank, the same was dishonored and returned by the Bank, because the officer who promised to clear the Cheque was on leave for that particular day, as I was reported. Subsequently by letter dated 27^th June 1979 Bank admitted about return of the said Cheque interalia stating that had to be returned unpaid by us on the 16^th May, 1979 as there was no sufficient funds in your account on that day. Though there were sufficient deposits in your account on the 17^th May, 1979, the Cheque in question had already been returned by us on the previous day. Taking advantage of return Cheque, Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., stopped supply of Raw Material to my unit, with sole object to cause closure of my unit. At subsequent event Company refused to accept even the proposal given by Sabya Sachi Mukherjee J. as he then was at the Calcutta High Court, who subsequently become Honble Chief Justice of India.

But, besides all such things, important thing is that the State Bank of Indias claim that Nation Bank on us, is not corroborating with my own experience and also experience claimed by one of Kanpur (U. P.) SSI unit, M/S. Charan Safe Works (P) Limited, which was compelled to file a Suit being No. 1609 of 1994, before the Learned Court of the Civil Judge, Kanpur, against the Bank.

With reference to my own experience, the matter is very much concern with the behaviour of the Bank. State Bank of India filed a Civil Suit No. 372 of 1984 against me before Kolkata High Court (Original Side), for recovery of alleged due of Rs.1,11,813.68. In fact before filing the Suit State Bank of India committed criminal act by criminal means to put the Suit within law of limitation. Forgery was committed by the Bank putting the date just below my signature on one blank Promissory Note taken from me by the Bank under compulsions (which is general practice of the Bank to obtain time to time blank promissory Notes). Said Promissory Note, was singed by me, in any case much before the said date of dispute i. e. 16^th June 1979. This is my statement on affirmation that I have never signed any Promissory Note, in any case, after the date of dishonor and return of my said Cheque of Rs.41,691=32 i.e. 16^th June 1979. In fact because of dishonor of the said Cheque my relationship with the Bank were effected and changed and dispute between me and the Bank were started. This is very important fact that after the said date, Bank sent one Promissory Note to me by Registered Post to sign it, at the pencil noting made by the Bank Officer, which I not signed and still lying with me. In fact the amount of dues on 16^th June 1979 (the day of the dispute) was just about Rs. 1,29,660/- + Rs.10,000/- in odd, which arises Rs.1,39,660.00, out of which I have deposited about Rs. 97,587.00 (appx.), so the actual dues on the day of the starting of the dispute was comes as Rs.41,,073/- (appx.) (All these figures are subject to correction, if any mistake). In considerations of aforesaid forgery, I filed one Petition before Honble Kolkata High Court, to reject the Plaint, and after hearing my Petition Honble Court directed that the before Hearing of the main Suit issue relates to date putting under the signature will be decided first. In another Petition, Honble Court, without prejudice my right directed me to deposit Suit amounts in Installments. As such, under such directions I deposited Rs.97,000/- in installments, without prejudice to my rights.

In the meantime situation was so developed against me under Poiltics-Crime-Nexus (see Photocopy of News published in Amrita Bazar Patrika Dated 15^th November 1994, as annexed here and please also visit : https://milapchoraria.tripod.com/writpetition ) under which I was compelled to flea from Kolkata, as such I was unable to look after my rights, including my fundamental rights, in each and every matter, including the said Suit matter. I have also informed you about my sufferings in the year of 1994 as then you were in opposition, and my letter was replied by youre the then Private Secretary Mr. Johar.

But, in any case, my fleaing from Kolkata does not give any right to State Bank of India to misuse its Position and obtain any illegal order which under the law of land is not due, from the Court, by producing false witness or otherwise. In considerations of apprehensions, I sent several Letters to the Manager, SIB Dn., State Bank of India, Howrah Branch, Howrah. But, they maintained silence, causing doubts in my mind about some bad game plan of the State Bank of India, in my matter.

In fact till now Union of India and Reserve Bank of India failed to regulate the Banks, by issuing appropriate guidelines, restraining the Banks not to adopt illegal practices and not to commit such fraudulent acts and deeds. This is my statement with full responsibility that if fair forensic test would be conducted for the age difference of my signature and the date inserted just below to my signature at the said Promissory Note, which was used by the State Bank of India to file the aforesaid Suit, this is bound to proved that the suit is filed beyond the law of limitations. Therefore any adverse Judgment against me in the aforesaid Suit is only possible under misrepresentations or false witness or evidence from the Bank before the Honble High Court, if at all have been passed.

In the context I should refer one matter that recently, I come across one News item published in the Times of India, Delhi dated 26^th September 2002 appearing : NATIONAL SC orders status quo on case against SBI chief: The Supreme Court has ordered status quo in the criminal contempt proceedings initiated by the Karnataka High Court against SBI chairman Janaki Ballabh and other top officers on the charge that they allegedly produced and relied on a forged document in a court case relating to VRS. However, the HC, despite the SC order of August 17 went on to pronounce an order rejecting the SBI chairmans plea seeking dropping of proceedings against him. The HC said that the order pronounced on August 17 was reserved on July 20. This News Item I am referring without prejudice.  

Therefore, this is my Humble request that Finance Ministry should pass appropriate balance Laws so the Banks should not adopt such fradulent acts ad deeds, and at the same time misappropriation of the public fund (Bank Money) should not be allowed, under connievance with Bank Officials.

Yours faithfully

  (Milap Choraria)