After reading
this Application you will realise, how highly
educated Architects, Engineers commit
criminal acts and work hand in glove with
Corrupt Bank Managers, by providing false
valuation reports.
Objection about incorrect reports of Recovery
Inspector and of Valuer Vastukala Design Build
Solutions for valuation of flat 501 after visit on
21.10.2009 recorded as Exhibit No 41, and Exhibit No
43 respectively.
On behalf of the abovenamed Intervener it is most
respectfully submitted that:
1. The Recovery Inspector had on 21.10.2009 visited
the composite flat 501/502 Pinky Panorama
Co-operative Society, 6th Road, Khar, to value the
flat 501, which includes a covered garage on the
ground floor. This garage is in the physical
possession of the Applicant Bank (Bharat Overseas
Bank Ltd / Indian Overseas Bank) since 28.7.2004 and
remains sealed since 12.10.2004 on which date the
Applicant Bank had taken possession of the full (flat
plus garage) property through the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrates Court under the SARFAESI Act.
2. The keys of this above referred Garage are with
Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd,. till today. The possession
of this part of the flat was never given to us on
27.2.2005, on which date, the Applicant Banks Chief
Manager Mr Mihir Datta, who was Authorised Officer
under the SARFAESI Act., gave the possession of the
5th floor composite flat 501/502 to us, after the
Joint Committee for sale, comprising of Punjab
National Bank and Applicant Bank, took full payment
by Bankers Cheques, for composite flat 501/502. The
flat 502 which is also falsely valued in 1998 at Rs
2.04 crores, was mortgaged with Punjab National Bank,
against loan of Rs 11.5 crores. This is recorded in
various cases at the MPID Court and numerous
petitions at the Bombay High Court.
3. The Applicant Banks Manager had deliberately not
brought the keys of the garage, this fact was pointed
out to the Recovery Inspector at the outset and the
locked garage door was inspected by the Recovery
Inspector along with the Manager of the Applicant
Bank, before coming to the composite flat 501/502 on
the fifth floor.
4. The 2 valuers from M/s Vastukala Design Build
Solutions, who had come about 30 minutes later, were
also apprised of the above facts and while leaving, I
came down to the ground floor and showed them the
locked and sealed garage, with seal of the Applicant
Bank, which is considered as part and parcel of flat
501 Pinky Panorama Co-operative Society.
5. It is most shocking that both the Recovery
Inspector and the Valuer have not mentioned a single
word about the above referred locked and sealed
garage in their reports, their reports are in record
as Exhibit 41 and Exhibit 43.
6. The Applicant Bank did not came with a copy of the
plan for flat 501, which they must have received,
when they sanctioned a loan of 6 Crores in 1998,
after the borrower mortgaged this flat 501 as the
only security. They must have the plan in their
records, because Mortgage could not have been taken
without copy of the Plan. But they chose not to bring
that Plan Copy as they have fraudulently shown the
area of this flat 501 as 2000 sq. ft and valued at Rs
2.04 crores in 1998.
7. This false valuation report for flat 501 in 1998
has been obtained by the Applicant Bank from another
Valuer M/s Anmol Sekhri and associates. They are now
attempting to get a second false valuation report in
2009 with help from Recovery Inspector, by making the
valuer M/s Vastukala Design Build Solutions measure
the full composite flat 501 / 502 and declare it as a
single flat 501.
8. The actions of the Recovery Inspector and the
Valuers in not giving an honest report, omitting all
facts about the locked and sealed Garage, are an
effort to help the applicant Bank keep a close lid on
all the frauds that they have conspired and committed
with the borrower Soundcraft Industries Ltd., since
1998.
9. The Recovery Inspector and the Valuer are making a
deliberate attempt to help the applicant bank escape
from the consequences of all the criminal acts that
they have committed so far.
10. Earlier this Intervener has filed M A no 24 on
29.6.2007, which contains more details how the
Applicant Bank has obtained the warrant of
Attachment, by concealing numerous relevant facts of
the case, which were within their own and also in the
knowledge of their lawyers from Consulta juris, who
have appeared for them at the MPID and High Court in
cases connected with this property. No reply has been
received from the Applicant Bank till today, to this
Miscellaneous Application.
11. I therefore humbly request this court to kindly
look in to the matter and maintain status quo till
some appropriate order is passed in the appeal no 220
filed by me, with the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal.
I repeat, reiterate and confirm whatever stated
herein is true and correct and to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
AFFIRMATION
I Rekha Indur Chhugani, the Appellant abovenamed,
R/o. : Mumbai, do hereby state that I have read the
contents of the foregoing paragraphs and whatever
stated therein is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief, for which I affirm and sign as
below.