False affidavit by Central bank of India
Sunil Pathak
(Querist) 30 November 2010
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
Please tell me what to do when Central Bank of India has submitted false affidavit and obtained judgement as under.
I am giving the facts as under and attaching a file for details also.
1. Mr. P. Methews, advance officer of phaphadih branch, Central Bank of India, Raipur had demanded a bribe of Rs 40000.00.
2. When this bribe was not paid, he started with holding returned DBP documents without collecting material from Railways / Transporters. The Mr. P. Methews, advance officer and branch manager Mr. R.R.Sharma did not allow us also to collect material by refusing to give RR/MTR ( a part of DBP documents). The branch manager has confirmed that they will not give documents in writing in a meeting dated 21.08.1991.
3. These returned bills reached to the tune of Rs 55.00 lacs. The central office of the bank started enquiry against Mr. R.R.Sharma, Branch Manager as to why the material was not collected by branch when the documents were not given to the borrower.
(Mr. Manjunath, the present branch manager of phaphadih branch of the bank has recovered DBP bills documents worth Rs 23.71 lacs in October 2009 still lying in the branch. The list of these bills are given in the proposal dated 10.01.2010 submitted to bank.)
4. Afraid from the enquiry the branch manager Mr. R.R.Sharma and Mr. P. Methews, advance officer tried to start recovery proceedings for this amount Rs 55.00 lacs against me.
5. Central office of the bank did not permit to start legal action against me as it was not my fault.
6. Then Mr. R.R.Sharma and Mr. P. Methews, advance officer decided to misguide their central office to start recovery proceeding against me. Details of misguidance with documentary evidence in shape of correspondence copies between branch manager, regional manager, zonal manager and central office is attached in details attached.
7. This misguidance was forwarded even to HON”BLE Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh by central office of the bank, who was finance minister during that period. A letter from HON”BLE Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh is also attached with documentary evidence that the bank misguided him in details. This letter is available at http://www.itimes.com/users/sunil.pathak/blog/Central-Bank-of-India-Loans-Finance-Minister-Business
8. Central Bank of India had given false affidavit and obtained judgment.
9. The present above bank officials including CMD of the bank is trying hard to hide these facts.
10. I have given eight applications under “Right to Information act 2005” against which the bank officials have given excuses to the extent that in an application when I asked the central office of the bank to inform me the reasons of furnishing wrong information to HON”BLE Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in 1993 when he was HON”BLE Finance Minister, the bank replied that it is their “matter of commercial confidence”. Giving wrong information about me to HON”BLE Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh is their matter of commercial confidence.
11. I had then submitted a facts proposal dated 17.07.2009 and 10.01.2010 on request of the bank incorporating all these photocopies of correspondence between Branch Manager, regional manager, zonal manager and central office proving above said facts that a false case has been made by the bank.
Instead of replying me and withdrawing all mental torture, harassment, irritation, and pressure and recovery proceedings still continuing mental torture, harassment, irritation, and pressure.
12. During my discussions with bank officials, they say that in bank even after knowing fully well no one including CMD has enough courage to admit these facts.
File with details attached here with.All copies of letters of the bank mentioned in details are available with me.
Sunil Pathak
Mb 09425203272
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 02 December 2010
I have studied the entire attachment with patience. It is really pathetic that simply you were not on line with the corrupt officials, they have killed ur unit. You have lot of evidence on hand. Have you not produced this during the recovery proceedings? I will summarise the plus points as follows:
a) You have supporting evidence to prove successfully that the then official bore grudge against you (the discharged hundies are in your possession evidencing the liability of the officer discharged by you).
2) When the Bank purchases a Bill, its status is "holder for consideration". It is the duty of the Bank to take all steps required for protecting the interest of the its party and itself. The Bank has not returned the unpaid bills and held the documents of title to goods with it without taking any action either against the drawee of the bills or secure the goods from the transport authorities. You are not liable to the Bank for those bills covered by the transport documents held by it.
3) As regards supply of information under RTI Act, the Bank can not claim exception under the pretexxt of commercial confidence as you are asking the correspondence relating to your account. You could have filed second appeal with CIC under RTI Act. However, the information on hand is sufficient to prove the harassment.
4) The matter is very old and the officials involved are not in service. Generally no public sector undertaking will admit self-corrections. You are advised th obtain the opinion of an expert advocate as to the availability of legal remedies at this stage.
Will any expert who is a practising advocate can suggest legal remedies if any in this genuine case?
Sunil Pathak
(Querist) 04 December 2010
Well , thanks a lot , I am trying to do it.
Sunil Pathak
