Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla's open letter to Mr. Uday Suresh Kotak in case of fraud and forgery. Proof Available: https://bankingnews.in/kotak-fraud/

1. 1 | P a g e
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);

2. 2 | P a g e
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:

3. 3 | P a g e
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

4. 4 | P a g e
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?
Question 3 Whether the said loan was given to Mr. Bhupendra
Bagla in his individual capacity or to the said
Company?
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?

5. 5 | P a g e
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

6. 6 | P a g e
recalling the entire loan amount prematurely issued to
the said company on 12.11.2008?
Question 19 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

7. 7 | P a g e
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?
Question 28 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?
Question 29 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 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

8. 8 | P a g e
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 to authorised Mr.
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?
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

9. 9 | P a g e
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 amount by way of
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?
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

10. 10 | P a g e
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?
Question 42 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 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?

11. 11 | P a g e
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 landlord Mr. Virendra
Sharma?
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

12. 12 | P a g e
sanctioned was without any collateral security and
loan was an unsecured loan?
Question 52 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?
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

13. 13 | P a g e
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!!!
Question 53 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?
Question 54 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 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 grievance and give
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?

14. 14 | P a g e
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

15. 15 | P a g e
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 no offence is made out.
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

16. 16 | P a g e
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”.

17. 17 | P a g e
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.

18. 18 | P a g e
Bhupendra Bagla. However, the complaint of Kotak Mahindra
Bank Ltd. was not registered by PS Barakhamba Road.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 Bhupendra Bagla, U/s
420/467/468/ 471 of IPC.
6. 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.
7. 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.

19. 19 | P a g e
8. 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.
9. 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 -
“.. 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.
10. Further, it is appropriate to mention that the Ld. Court in its
order dated 14.10.2019, as observed as under -
“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 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

20. 20 | P a g e
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.
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. ….”
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.

21. 21 | P a g e
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 huge investment in various
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

22. 22 | P a g e
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

23. 23 | P a g e
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

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