The Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Delhi has directed the SHO of Barakhamba Road Police Station to register FIR and investigate the matter against seven accused i.e.
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd;
- Uday S. Kotak, (Managing Director & CEO);
- C. Jayaram (Joint Managing Director);
- Dipak Gupta (Joint Managing Director);
- Sanjay Kumar (Officer);
All officials of Kotak Mahindra Bank
- Managers at K.G. Marg & Pitampura branches of Kotak Mahindra Bank; and
- One Mr. Virendra Kumar Sharma.
The FIR is registered on the basis of complaint filed by Mumbai based businessman Dr. Santosh Bagla and his Family.
Earlier Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had asked Kotak Mahindra Bank to examine and redress the grievances of the complainant within a time-bound manner. Dr Bagla had earlier complained to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) about vindictive action by the Bank which was passed on with instructions to examine the matter.
The complainants Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla, his wife Smt. Pushpa Bagla and son Bhupendra Bagla had filed complaint of frauds, forgery and illegalities against Kotak Mahindra Bank and its Directors and officials with police and to various higher authorities. The complaint of Mr. Bhupendra Bagla against Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mr. Uday S. Kotak and others was filed U/s 420/464/465/467/ 471/120B/34/109 of IPC.
On the directions of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi the Police at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi registered the case and an FIR No. 0120/2019 dated 19.10.2019 against Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and six other accused including Mr. Uday S. Kotak, MD & CEO.
The M.M., Patiala Courts, New Delhi vide an order dated 14.10.2019 had issued directions to Police Station, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi for registering the FIR in the matter of a complaint filed by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla under Section 156(3) read with Section 200 of Cr. PC.
In the said order, the Court had directed vide order dated 14.10.2019 as–
“This court is of the considered view that matter discloses Cognizable Offence and it is relevant to mention here that in FIR No. 149/09 PS B.K. Road lodged by proposed accused no. 7 against the complainant, complainant has been discharged”
“This Court is of the considered view that matter requires investigation by police, as several documents are to be collected and verified and number of persons are to be examined. In these circumstances, SHO concerned is directed to register FIR in this matter and investigate the same as per law. Copy of this order be sent to SHO concerned for compliance”.
The directions have been issued on the complainant of complainant Mr. Bhupendra Bagla who had filed his complaint u/s 156(3) Cr. PC along with complaint u/s 190 read with Section 200 of Cr.PC against Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & others with charges under Section U/s 420/464/465/467/471/120B/34/109 of IPC.
Conspiracy and forgery of documents by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and others and one Mr. Virendra Sharma
Mr. Virendra Sharma, Owner of Property situated at E-41/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi has filed a complaint before Commissioner of Police, Delhi, against Mr. Bhupendra Bagla alleging that Mr. Bagla has mortgaged his property to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited for a loan of Rs. 50 lacs which had been taken by one Company M/s. Cogent Ventures India Ltd. whereas Mr. Virendra Sharma has given his property on lease to one Company M/s. Cogent EMR Solutions Limited in which Mr. Bhupendra Bagla was a director.
The said complaint of Mr. Virendra Sharma was registered as FIR No. 149/09 PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Also, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. filed a complaint at PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi against Mr. Bhupendra Bagla regarding forging of two documents i.e. one affidavit and one Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla. However, the complaint of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was not registered at PS B.K. Road.
Now, the Court has discharged Mr. Bhupendra Bagla on 10/12/2018 in FIR No. 149/09 after conducting trial in the matter and it ultimately revealed that Mr. Bhupendra Bagla was falsely implicated in said case.
The Court has taken view in their order dated 14.10.2019 as-
“.. it is submitted that as dispute had arisen with proposed accused no. 7 regarding the said property, so proposed accused no. 7 in order to achieve his goal in connivance with other accused persons filed a false and frivolous complaint against complainant (Mr. Bhupendra Bagla) at PS and alleged that concerned company fraudulently took the loan by creating charge on his property and on his complaint FIR No. 149/09 was registered and in said case complainant was arrested and later was granted bail. It is submitted that complainant was falsely implicated in said case. …”
So, a Conspiracy and forgery of documents by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & its associates and Mr. Virendra Sharma has been revealed after the trail of the matter.
Further, the Court has observed in their order dated 14.10.2019 that –
“It is submitted that Complainant (Mr. Bhupendra Bagla) was director of said company (Cogent EMR Solution Ltd.), however, he resigned from directorship of the said company on 28.04.2008 and also resigned from directorship of another group company i.e. Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. it is submitted that during directorship of complainant of Company M/s. Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. representative of proposed accused no. 6 approached said company with various schemes of loan and they offered an unsecured loan of Rs. 50 lakhs and due to inducement on the part of proposed accused no. 6, M/s. Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. agreed to avail unsecured loan of Rs. 50 lakhs, which was sanctioned and disbursed for a period of 36 months. It is submitted that earlier instalments were paid timely by concerned company, however, after some time due to some business issue some instalments could not be paid in time.
So, in order to create pressure for repayment of loan proposed accused no. 1 to 6 in connivance with each other forged and fabricated two documents i.e. one affidavit and one POA (power of attorney), allegedly executed by complainant and on the basis of said documents proposed accused persons initiated recovery proceedings before DRT. It is submitted that later concerned company discharged the entire loan and compromise took place between the concerned company and proposed accused bank and in the compromise proposed accused bank specifically admitted that property bearing no. E-41/4, Okhla Industrial Area was not mortgaged by concerned company with the bank and loan was unsecured loan. ….”