TAK MAHINDRA BANK, ALONGWITH QUESTIONS WHICH REMAINED UNANSWERED

1. SPEED POST/COURIER/HAND DELIVERY OPEN LETTER TO MR UDAY SURESH KOTAK, MD & CEO, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, ALONGWITH QUESTIONS WHICH REMAINED UNANSWERED Dated: 04.12.2019 Mr. Uday Suresh Kotak Managing Director & CEO Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited 27 BKC, C-27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Email: ceo@kotak.com Also at: Mr. Uday Suresh Kotak Managing Director & CEO Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Flat No. 62, 6th Floor, NCPA, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 Sub: Regarding proving yourself and your Bank as clean & innocent in respect of frauds, forgery and illegalities committed against the applicants herein and making their lives as miserable putting the same at stake. The applicants - 1) Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla S/o. Late Lachhmi Narayan Bagla; 2) Smt. Pushpa Bagla W/o. Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla; & 3) Bhupendra Bagla S/o Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla (hereinafter collectively referred as the Applicants); 1 | P a g e

2. are law abiding Indian citizens having address at La – Magasin, No. 405, 4th Floor, 63, S.V. Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054. The Applicants are aggrieved because of the illegal acts and deeds of your Bank and its Directors/ Officials. The Applicant(s) had issued a Legal Notice dated 13/08/2019 through their Advocate, for malicious prosecution and defamation against the Applicants. However, no reply has yet been received at your end till date. Further, the Appellants have sent a representation / complaint dated 14.08.2019 to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India about the frauds, forgery and illegalities of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, its officials and for taking appropriate action against its Managing Director & CEO Mr. Uday Suresh Kotak and his other associates i.e. Directors, officials of the Bank and other person involved in conspiracy of committing the offence against the Applicants family. It is also stated that in reference to the Representation / Complaint dated 14th August 2019 of the Applicants, PMO directed Mr. Nikhil Pohare, Nodal Officer of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd through portal on dated 17th September 2019, and requested for “arrange to examine and redress the grievance and give appropriate reply to the complainant within a time bound manner. After redressal, a copy of reply given to complainant along with your comments / action may be uploaded on the CPGRAMS portal”. However, despite of various letter/ correspondence to Mr. Nikhil Pohare, he too failed to redress the grievance of the Applicants or give any reply in the matter. Now, the Applicants would like to ask you, being at the helm of affairs of Kotak Mahindra Bank as to why a conspiracy was committed against the applicants? and as a key person why you have not taken any action against errant officials for their frauds, forgery and illegalities against the applicant(s)? By your illegal acts and untrue version of the Bank, the life of the applicants have been spoiled. By this illegal and untrue version, the applicants has to suffer a lot, not only physically but also socially, mentally as well as financially and has to face the following consequences: 2 | P a g e

3. 1.Mr. Bhupenra Bagla was illegally arrested whereas no loan was taken by him and no Power of Attorney and Affidavit was ever signed by him in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank; 2.Applicants have to resign from the various companies due to the illegal acts and untrue version of the Bank before various forums/courts; 3.The married life of Bhupendra Bagla got ruined as he was divorced by his wife because of Bank’s false & frivolous complaint and case against him; 4.The prestige and reputation of the applicants amongst their relatives and in the society, has been damaged badly. The applicant(s) would like to ask you Sir, what was the reason to create foraged and fabricated documents i.e. Power of Attorney and Affidavit by which Bank filed a false complaint against Mr. Bhupendra Bagla? You have spoiled the life of Applicants’ family, however, the applicants would like to ask you to give the answer of following questions why such illegal action was taken against the Applicants? IN RESPECT OF: LOAN SANCTIONED AND DOCUMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED & CVIL INFRA LIMITED Question 1 Who approached the Bank for the loan facility of Rs. 50 lakh? Whether it was Mr. Bhupendra Bagla or the Company i.e. Cogent Ventures India Limited (now known as CVIL Infra Ltd) ? Or 3 | P a g e

4. Did the officials of the Bank approach to the said Cogent Ventures India Limited (hereinafter the Company?) Question 2 Who were the officials of the Bank at the relevant time who dealt with the said Company regarding the said loan facility? Whether the said loan was given to Mr. Bhupendra Bagla in his individual capacity or to the said Company? Question 3 Question 4 If the loan was sanctioned to said Company, then on what basis / strength your Bank had sanctioned the said loan to said company? Question 5 Which Branch of your Bank was approached for the said loan facility? Whether it was a Vasant Vihar Branch, New Delhi or some other Branch? Question 6 Was not the said loan a business loan on the basis of sound financial condition of the said company? Question 7 What was the Net Worth of the said company at that relevant time and was there any loan existing on the said company at that time as enquired by your Bank officials.? Question 8 Whether the loan sanctioned by your Bank to said company was a secured loan or the same was an unsecured one? Question 9 Whether the loan agreement of your Bank was in a prescribed format in each case or the same was drafted as per the customers/clients requirements? Question 10 In whose presence, the loan documents were signed by the Borrower and guarantors? 4 | P a g e

5. Question 11 Had the Bank checked and verified the financials of the said company before sanctioning the said loan facility? Question 12 Whether you had any knowledge about the Premises/ property No. E-41/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi (hereinafter said Premises) that the same was taken on lease by one company Cogent EMR Solutions Limited from the landlord Mr. Virendra Kumar Sharma? Question 13 Whether any offer/proposal was made by said company to your Bank to secure the said Premises against the said loan sanctioned by your Bank? Question 14 Whether any offer/proposal had been made by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla to your Bank to secure the said Premises against the said loan sanctioned by your Bank? Question 15 Whether the Bank’s Officials had visited the said Premises before extending the said loan facility to the said company? Question 16 Whether any document / deed was signed to mortgage said Premises in favour of your Bank? Question 17 Was there any understanding being done between your Bank and Mr. Virendra Sharma, the landlord for leasing the said premises for your Bank’s use.? IN RESPECT OF : NOTICE TO RECALL ENTIRE LOAN AMOUNT Question 18 Isn’t it true that the said loan facility was sanctioned to the said Company on the basis of its net-worth and sound financial condition? If yes, why the notice for 5 | P a g e

6. recalling the entire loan amount prematurely issued to the said company on 12.11.2008? Whether the said company had made any proposal for rescheduling the said loan facility, to your Bank? If yes when? IN RESPECT OF : O.A. FILED WITH DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL Question 20 It is on record that the Bank has filed an OA No. 57 of 2009 on 04.06.2009 for recovery of loan amount from Cogent Ventures (India) Limited with an statement that the loan was granted on the mortgage of said Premises and submitted before the Ld. DRT the copy of two documents namely one Affidavit and a Power of Attorney alleged to be signed by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla son of Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla. Why you had not submitted the originals of these particular documents before Ld. DRT in support of your case? Question 21 All original documents of mortgage are always kept with the lender until the loan account is settled. Then how did your Bank made a false averment before DRT that the disputed documents were returned to the borrower? Question 22 Does power of attorney and affidavit can be treated as title documents as per the Bank’s rule? Question 23 Can a mortgage/charge be created on a property on the basis of power of attorney and affidavit? Question 24 The Bank was claiming that the said loan was secured loan and the said loan was sanctioned on 25.08.2007, then why an RTI on 20.08.2009 was made by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, some officer of the Bank, before Municipal Corporation of Delhi for obtaining the Question 19 6 | P a g e

7. information of ownership of said Premises stating that Bhupendra Bagla approached the Bank for mortgage of the said premises? Question 25 Before making an RTI Application, whether the Bank has taken any information from the borrower regarding title of the property? Also whether the Bank had verified the title documents of the property from borrower before sanctioning the said loan? Question 26 Since the Bank alleges before the DRT that the said loan was a secured loan, then had either the company or Mr. Bhupendra given the Title Documents of the said property to the Bank for creating mortgage? Question 27 Whether the RTI application was filed deliberately despite knowing the true fact about ownership of the said Premises / property and just to prepare fabricating documents with malafide intention to malign and harm the reputation of Mr. Bhupendra Bagla? Whether lease documents of the said Premises were not shared by the said company and Cogent EMR Solutions Limited with your Bank at the time of loan sanctioned? When the said Premises was/is situated at Okhla, South East Delhi jurisdiction then why the complaint for cheating, criminal breach of trust, dishonest misappropriation of property etc. was lodged on 17.09.2009 at Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and at whose behest? Question 28 Question 29 Question 30 When your branch was situated at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi jurisdiction then why the complaint for cheating, criminal breach of trust, dishonest misappropriation of property etc. was filed on 17.09.2009 at Police 7 | P a g e

8. Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and at whose behest? Question 31 Why the complaint dated 17.09.2009 was filed against Mr. Bhupendra Bagla and Mrs. Pushpa Bagla whereas there are other guarantors & Directors of the said loan facility? Whether both these are specific target at the Bank? Question 32 Whether the said complaint dated 17.09.2009 was in the knowledge of Mr. Uday Suresh Kotak, Chairman and Managing Director of the Kotak Bank? Question 33 A Board Resolution dated 25.03.2009 was passed in the Bank’s Board Meeting Chandrashekhar Prasad, Deputy Manager of Kotak Bank to file complaint and application against Mr. Bhupendra Bagla and Mrs. Pushpa Bagla. Whether Mr. Uday Suresh Kotak, Chairman and Managing Director of the Kotak Bank was present in the said Board Meeting held on 25.03.2009? Who were present in the Board Meeting when the said resolution was passed? to authorised Mr. Question 34 Whether the said Board Resolution dated 25.03.2009 was taken on record i.e. the same was duly incorporated in Board’s Minute Book? Who all had signed the Minutes? Question 35 What was the agenda for the Board Meeting to pass the said Board Resolution.? Was Mr. Anand Mahindra was also present in the said Board Meeting? Question 36 Your Bank has mentioned in your complaint dated 17.09.2009 that ‘accused no. 1 (i.e. Mr. Bhupendra Bagla) approached the Complainant Bank at UGF 1-11, Amardeep Building, 14 Kasturba Gandi Marg, New Delhi-11001 to avail short term 8 | P a g e

9. business loan vide agreement no. 167543 dated 25/08/2009. Don’t you think that the same is contradictory version as the sanctioning branch of the said loan facility was D-10, No. 1,2, Local Shopping Centre Vasant Vihar, D Block, New Delhi-37 and notice to re-call the entire loan amount dated 12.11.2008 was issued from the said address? Question 37 Your Bank has mentioned in the complaint dated 17.09.2009 that all the accused persons are guilty of commission of offence of cheating by first obtaining the aforesaid mentioned loan misrepresentation and wrong warranties particularly by executing a forged power of attorney and false affidavit thereby cheating the first charge of the Bank against the said loan over property Cogent Matrix, E- 41/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi- 110020 falsely claiming to be the owner of the said property which he was not. Now question arises, whether any charge was registered with Registrar of Companies or Sub-registrar office, Delhi in respect of the alleged mortgaging of the said Premises/Property in favour of your Bank? amount by way of Question 38 Whether mortgage of any immovable property, registration of charge is compulsory or not? Question 39 Had your Bank asked the company or Mr. Bhupendra Bagla to create charge in RoC? If not, why.? Question 40 If charge is not registered, can it be understood that Bank has not complied with all the legal formalities in respect of mortgaging the said property/Premises? IN RESPECT OF :POWER OF ATTORNEY AND AFFIDAVIT DATED 24/08/2007 9 | P a g e

10. Question 41 Whether these two documents i.e. affidavit and power of attorney both dated 24.08.2007, were signed by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla? If yes, in whose presence? Whether these two documents i.e. affidavit and power of attorney both dated 24.08.2007, were part of the loan documents or executed separately? Question 42 Question 43 If it is presumed that Affidavit dated 24.08.2009 was signed and given by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla, whether your Bank has read and confirmed the language of this affidavit? It is mentioned in the affidavit- ‘that I have availed financial facilities from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.(KMBL) vide agreement dated Aug 24, 2007 and in pursuance of such an agreement, I have agreed to provide KMBL charge over the said property in such form and manner as KMBL may require. Isn’t this language of the affidavit is contradictory as the loan was taken by the said company and not by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla? IN RESPECT OF :COMPLAINT OF MR. VIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMDATED 08/10/2009 Question 44 Whether on the basis of alleged forged documents and on your complaint dated 17/09/2009, the landlord Mr. Virendra Kumar Sharma had also filed a complaint dated 08/10/2009 against Mr. Bhupendra Bagla, Mrs. Pushpa Bagla and Mr. A.D. Bhargav at Barakhamba Police Station? Question 45 Is it not so that when your Bank filed a complaint dated 17/09/2009 against Mr. Bhupendra Bagla & others and the same was not registered or converted into FIR, therefore you played a game by filing another false and frivolous complaint through the landlord Mr. Virendra Sharma against Bhupendra Bagla& others? 10 | P a g e

11. Question 46 It is mentioned in the complaint dated 08/10/2009 of landlord Mr. Virendra Sharma that - ‘I went to the office of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited at Pitampura and they had allowed me to access the documents executed by Bhupendra Bagla, Pushpa Bagla and A.D. Bhargav. Despite of knowing that loan is unsecured loan, your Bank is never disclosed to Mr. Virendra Sharma that no property was mortgaged to your Bank. Why? Were you not in conspiracy with landlord Mr. Virendra Sharma at that time? Question 47 When the landlord Mr. Virendra Sharma visited your Pitampura branch and the property was/ is situated at Okhla Industrial Area, why Mr. Virendra Sharma had filed his complaint at Barakhamba Police Station. Is it not so your conspiracy as you have already filed a complaint with Barakhamba Road Police Station? Question 48 Is it not true that the Bank hatched a conspiracy to grab the office/property, which was on a lease? Question 49 Isn’t it correct that the Bank was aware of all the true facts, despite that the Bank filed false and frivolous complaint and the case against Bhupendra Bagla& others? Question 50 Is it correct that using the power and influence, the Bank was succeeded to get registered a FIR against the company and Mr. Bhupendra Bagla& others, with a conspiracy alongwith Sharma? landlord Mr. Virendra IN RESPECT OF: KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LETTER DATED 12/11/2009 Question 51 Had not your Bank clarified to the said Company by way of a letter dated 12/09/2009 that the loan 11 | P a g e

12. sanctioned was without any collateral security and loan was an unsecured loan? By simple reading of the language of the said letter dated 12/09/2009, it seems that Bank had no knowledge, how the property was mortgaged for a loan? Question 52 The said letter stated - “during the meeting, after due deliberations and clarification furnished by you, it is cleared that property bearing no. E-41/4 Ground Floor Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 is not mortgage or hypothecated to our Bank. It is clarified that the loan otherwise also is an unsecured loan. It is further clarified that it is because of the reason that the loan is an unsecured loan that we have not proceeded against any property including the one detailed herein above treating it to be a security/mortgage for the said loan under SERFAESI.” By the said letter dated 12/09/.2009, the identity of the Bank in itself is doubtful - -Bank is saying that client has clarified to them that property was not mortgage in favour of Bank. It means when loan was given by Bank, Bank had no knowledge that the loan property was mortgaged or not!! -Bank was saying that client had clarified to them that loan was unsecured loan. It means when loan was given by Bank, Bank had no knowledge that the loan was secured or unsecured!!! -Bank was saying that client had clarified to them that loan is unsecured loan and property is not mortgaged in favour of Bank, therefore they will not 12 | P a g e

13. proceed against the property where they have an OA before the Hon’ble DRT!!! -Now, what sort of due diligence was done by the Bank at the time of sanctioning the said loan facility!!! The Bank on 11/11/2009, in response to the notice u/s 91 of Cr.PC, on the landlord’s (Mr. Virendra Sharma) complaint had said that loan was secured loan whereas the very next day the Bank in a letter dated 12/11/2019 to the company wrote that the loan was unsecured. Why such contradiction and what the Bank has to say on it? Is it not so that all this was created for early recovery of loan amount from the borrower and also with other motive relating to the property? Question 53 Question 54 Question 55 We (the Applicants herein) have issued to you, your Bank and other officials, a Legal Notice dated 13/08/2019, but you have chosen not to reply of the same. Any specific reason for not replying? Question 56 On our grievance against your Bank, we had written to the Hon’ble Prime Minister on 14.08.2019 and he had written/transferred to the RBI on 01.10.2019 for providing requisite information in the matter. The PMO vide a letter dated 17.09.2019 written to the Nodal Officer of Kotak Mahindra Bank to arrange to examine and redress the appropriate reply to the complainant within a time bound manner. We had also written directly to the Nodal Officer several times and also the copy of the various letters written to the Hon’ble Prime Minister was sent to the Nodal Officer. But we have not received a single reply from your Nodal Officer as yet. Why such a delay and lapse? grievance and give 13 | P a g e

14. Question 57 In the past we had been threatened by your officials for which we have filed complaints with the appropriate authorities and again recently we have been getting threats. Is this a regular practice of your Bank against aggrieved customers who try to raise their voice? Question 58 The RBI grants Banking licence to all Banks for fair practice u/s 22 (2) & (3) of Banking Regulation Act, then how does your Bank failed in this statutory provision? What is your comment on this? Question 59 Wikipedia has also updated your page with the link and comments on the basis of frauds done by you and your Bank with us. What is your comment on that.? Question 60 Various media houses have taken up the matter and published articles against you and your Bank. What do you have to say for that.? Further, it is stated that the Applicants have out rightly rejected the response given by Kotak Mahindra Bank in Media and submitted that they are used to twist the facts. Moreover, they are giving the statement in media and talking about the settlement with Bagla family whereas there is no such settlement. With reference to the statement given in media, Sh. Rohit Rao, Chief Communication Officer, Kotak Mahindra Group has clarified – “This issue is about a ten year old loan recovery case where the borrower – Cogent Ventuires India Limited and members of Bagla family as guarantors had defaulted on their loan repayment and to recover dues, our bank had initiated recovery proceedings. Subsequently, the borrower entered into an out-of-court settlement and repaid the Bank’s dues. Our Bank always acts in accordance with the prevailing law and regulations. The FIR 14 | P a g e

15. filed by Bhupendra Bagla makes the matter sub-judice and we cannot comment on a sub-judice matter. We stand committed to extend full cooperation to the investigation agency.”. In response to the above statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bagla family outrightly rejected/ rejects the response as appeared in the media on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Bank. There has always been twisting of facts on the part of Kotak Mahindra Bank in the matter despite of the fact that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at New Delhi vide an order dated 10.12.2018 has discharged Bhupendra Bagla from all the charges holding that the prosecution failed to establish even a prima facie case against him and held that the loan was not disbursed to him. The Ld. Court has observed in the said order dated 10.12.2018 that – “This Court is of the considered view that in view of the subsequent letter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., it is clear that loan was not given to accused Bhupendra Bagla on the basis of mortgage of property of complainant and same was given on the basis of status of his company and Bank account transactions. In these circumstances offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. So far as section 467/468/471 IPC is concerned as per FSL result no opinion has been given on the affidavit or GPA as original were not submitted for examination. In these circumstances Accordingly, accused Bhupendra Bagla is discharge for the offence under Section 420/467/468/471 IPC.” Further, the Ld. Court vide an order dated 14.10.2019 on the complaint filed by Bhupendra Bagla U/s 156(3) & U/s 200 Cr. P.C has held that- “This Court is of the considered view that matter requires investigation by police, as several documents are to be no offence is made out. 15 | P a g e

16. 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”. It is clear from the order of the Court that there has been forgery of certain documents and the same were created and presented by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and its associates in conspiracy with one Mr. Virendra Sharma, the owner of the property. It is also clear from the perusal of records, evidence and order of Court that the loan was not taken by any member of Bagla family and no settlement was made between Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and Bagla family. Kotak Mahindra Bank had an ill intention since beginning when they issued “Notice to recall entire loan amount” on dated 8th April 2009 to Cogent Ventures India Ltd. and filed an Original Application in DRT, Delhi on 28th May 2009. The said OA was filed on false fact, fabricated documents and wrong statement that “The Loan was granted on the mortgage/ security of said lease premises”. Thereafter, in conspiracy with owner of the property Mr. Virendra Sharma, Kotak Mahindra Bank filed complaint for registering a case of commission of the offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and etc. against Bagla family at PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi on 17.09.2009 and persuaded owner of the property Mr. Virendra Sharma also to file a complaint dated 12.10.2009 against Bagla family on the basis of which, an FIR No. 149/09 dated 15.10.2009 was registered at PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. It is well known to everybody in the market that Kotak Mahindra Bank has expertise in recovery of their dues by hook or crook, and by adopting such practice and pressure tactics, loan was got settled with Cogent Venture India Ltd. on 12.11.2009 and later the entire loan amount was paid by Cogent Venture India Ltd. It is on record that Kotak Mahindra Bank had issued a letter dated 12.11.2009 wherein they admitted that loan was given to company as “Unsecured Loan”. 16 | P a g e

17. Despite of that there was no role of Bagla family in the above loan transaction except that they had given guarantee and loan amount was paid off by the company later, Mr. Bhupendra Bagla was illegally arrested in the abovesaid false and frivolous FIR No. 149/09 dated 15.10.2009. It is very interesting to see that Kotak Mahindra Bank is not talking about those forged and fabricated documents i.e. Power of Attorney and Affidavit dated 24.08.2007 which were created by Kotak Bank to implicate Bagla family but on the contrary alleged that they were executed by Bhupendra Bagla. Now the Hon’ble Court, after long trial has taken cognizance of the same and is of 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. Now the undersigned submit the following facts of the matter for your kind perusal which are very necessary to consider and understand the grievances of the undersigned and his family. 1. Mr. Virendra Sharma, owner of property situated at E-41/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi, had 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 Cogent Ventures India Ltd.; Mr. Virendra Sharma has given his property on lease to another company Cogent EMR Solutions Limited in which Mr. Bhupendra Bagla was one of the director. 2. The said complaint of Mr. Virendra Sharma was registered as FIR No. 149/09 dated 15/10/2009 at PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. filed a complaint dated 17.09.2009 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. 17 | P a g e

18. Bhupendra Bagla. However, the complaint of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was not registered by PS Barakhamba Road. During the course of investigation, it was informed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd that Bhupendra Bagla executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Bank and thereby mortgaged the said property and he also filed an affidavit in this regard which states that he was an absolute owner of the said property. However, Bank did not provide original copies of the said Power of Attorney and Affidavit alleged to have been executed by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla and stated that they were having only photocopies of the same. It is submitted that by way of subsequent letter dated 12/11/2009, Bank informed that said property was not mortgaged by Bhupendra Bagla and loan was given to the company as ‘Unsecured Loan’ on the basis of Bank account transaction and status of the company. It is submitted that Charge sheet dated 24/05/2011 in FIR No. 149/09 was filed before the MM Court, New Delhi for taking the cognizance against accused 420/467/468/ 471 of IPC. The Court later on however discharged Mr. Bhupendra Bagla vide its order dated 10/12/2018 in the said FIR No. 149/09 and observed that Mr. Bhupendra Bagla was falsely implicated in said case as stated above. It is submitted that Mr. Bhupendra Bagla filed a complaint before PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi on 17/06/2015 against Kotak Mahindra Bank & others for forgery of documents however, no FIR was registered by PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Thereafter, complainant Mr. Bhupendra Bagla filed his complaint before the C.M.M., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi 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 under Section U/s 420/464/ 465/467/ 471/120B/ 34/109 of IPC. 3. 4. 5. Bhupendra Bagla, U/s 6. 7. 18 | P a g e

19. The Ld. M.M., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, on 14.10.2019 after hearing the parties issued directions to Police Station, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi for registering an FIR against Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and six other accused including Mr. Uday S. Kotak, MD & CEO. Further, the Ld. Court in its order dated 14.10.2019 has clearly mentioned in its order, the submissions made by the complainant as under - 8. 9. “.. 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 (i.e. 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 is evident in the matter. Further, it is appropriate to mention that the Ld. Court in its order dated 14.10.2019, as observed as under - 10. 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 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 “It is submitted that Complainant (Mr. Bhupendra Bagla) 19 | P a g e

20. part of proposed accused no. 6, 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. 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. ….” So, in order to create pressure for repayment of loan It is submitted that on the perusal of the order of M.M Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and above mentioned documents, it is crystal clear that there is conspiracy, cheating and forgery of certain documents. The Applicants submit that the Bank was found involved in unethical and illegal practices for recovery of their loan by way of forging documents/ papers and inducement, misrepresentation, false assurances to customers for sanctioning loan and in this process, there were unlawful gains directly or indirectly to Bank while its clients/ customers suffer losses of reputation and business loss. It is submitted that since the matter was referred to the Consumer Education and Protection Department (CEPD) of the RBI, the undersigned applicant visited the office of the said department situated at 1st Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road, Mumbai and requested to meet the General Manager of the said Department Mr. R. K. Kamalakanan (Mob. No.: 94530 45661) and Mr Anil Kumar (Mob. No. 20 | P a g e

21. 99201 46793) the Asst. General Manager. Since both of them were not available in the office, the undersigned applicant was referred to one Mr. Subramaniam Mahadevan (Mob. No. 94451 91162) who listened to the grievance and checked on their internal system. He informed that the complaint of undersigned applicantwas referred to one Mr. J. P. Bansal (Mob. No. 99106 92319) who looks after the Kotak Mahindra Bank’s cases in the RBI. The undersigned applicanton 05.11.2019 tried to contact Mr. J. P. Bansal over phone and Text Messages and finally could speak to him. The said Mr. J. P. Bansal refused to meet the undersigned although he was constitutionally bound to meet the citizens approaching him with their grievances. It is further submitted that the undersigned is not well since last several years and because of my continuing and deteriorating health conditions and blocking of companies/projects, pressure of creditors and investors have aggravated my health. I am suffering from extreme fragility of health and have developed Hypertension, Ischeamic Heart Disease, Diabetes, Anxiety, Insomnia, Angina Pectoris, Spondolytis, Lower Back Pain in the Lumbar region of Spine and is under treatment of the panel of Doctors. It is stated that the harassment on the part of Kotak Mahindra Bank, its officials and another and protracted litigation further resulted undersigned’s felling sick and going into acute depression. The undersigned being apprehensive of danger to my life and liberty, therefore, has even sought for providing security to me and my family and in this regard, we have also written to Ministry of Home Affairs/ Delhi Police. Further, the undersigned have learnt that the officials of Kotak Bank and their associates are now indulging in spreading false and mischievous information that Bagla family is making false claims and there are lot of litigations pending against them. Some persons connected to Kotak Mahindra Bank are even threatening Bagla family for filing complaints and sending notice. All this is being made only to bring disrepute to Bagla family as there is no case pending against the undersigned and his family members as on date. We are in the process huge investment in various 21 | P a g e

22. of taking appropriate legal action against such bullying and intention to bring disrepute to Bagla family. In view of the above, the applicants highly regrets that no reply has been given in respect of the Legal Notice of Applicants dated 13/08/2019 and also no reply is given by Mr. Nikhil Pohare, Nodal Officer of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd for the redressal of the grievance. Now, the Applicants suggests and request that being at the helm of affairs of Kotak Mahindra Bank, please reply to all the queries we have raised hereinabove and if you are not involved in the above conspiracy, then please give appropriate directions for an investigation in the matter to the concerned officials of your Bank and give a suitable time to the applicants to have a meeting with you so that the applicants is able to put before you all the evidences and explanations in this regard. Thanking you, Yours truly, (Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla) For Self and on behalf of Smt. Pushpa Bagla /Applicant No. 2: and Bhupendra Bagla / Applicant No. 3 La – Magasin No.405, 4th Floor, 63 S,V, Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai – 400 054. Copy to: 1.Sh. Narendra Damodardas Modi, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Government of India, Office south Block, Raisina Hill, New Delhi-110011. Email: connect@mygov.nic.in 22 | P a g e

23. 2.His Excellency, The President of India Rashtrapati Bhawan New Delhi-110004. Email: sec.president@rb.nic.in 3.The Hon’ble Vice President, Vice-President's Secretariat, 6, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi - 110 011, Email Id: vpindia@nic.in 4.The Hon’ble Governor of Maharashtra, Raj Bhawan, Walkeshwar Road, Malabar Hills, Mumbai – 400035. Email Id: governor-mah@nic.in 5.The Hon’ble Chief Minister Of Maharashtra, Chief Minister Office, 6th Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032 Email: chiefminister@maharashtra.gov.in 6.The Governor of Reserve Bank of India, 6, Sansad Marg, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi – 110001 Email Id. rdnewdelhi@rbi.org.in 7. The Secretary Ministry for Finance, 3rd Floor, Jeevandeep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001 Email Id: secy-fs@nic.in 23 | P a g e

24. 8. The Secretary, Department of Financial Services (Banking Division) Ministry of Finance, Jeevan Deep Building SansadMarg, New Delhi – 110001 Email: secy-fs@nic.in 24 | P a g e