TWO LETTERS ISSUED BY KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED WHICH ARE CRUCIAL FOR THE INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER OF BAGLA’S FAMILY AND ARE CONTRADICTORY ITSELF.

PRESS NOTE TWO LETTERS ISSUED BY KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED WHICH ARE CRUCIAL FOR THE INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER OF BAGLA’S FAMILY AND ARE CONTRADICTORY ITSELF. An FIR No. 0120/2019 dated 19/10/2019 registered under section 420/34 of IPC, against Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and six other accused including Mr. Uday S. Kotak, MD & CEO and also against unknown persons, vide court order dated 14.10.2019 of M.M., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, arising out of a complaint filed by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla under Section 156(3) read with Section 200 of Cr.PC with charges U/s 420/464/465/467/471/120B/34/109 of IPC, before M.M., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. It has been alleged in the complaint that the officials of the Bank in collusion and in connivance with each other, hatched a conspiracy and forged and fabricated documents including one affidavit and a power of attorney which were alleged to have been executed by one of the Bagla’s family member i.e. Mr. Bhupendra Bagla for mortgaging leased property situated at E-41/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi against a unsecured loan and on the basis of which the Bank initiated recovery proceeding before the Ld. DRT. The aforesaid loan was not a secured loan which was later on confirmed by the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vide there letter dated 12/11/2019. However, 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 allegedly executed by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla and stated that they were having only photocopies of the same. by a letter dated 11/11/2009 the Kotak Mahindra Bank misrepresented to the police that the allegations in the said FIR No. 149/2009 (against Mr. Bhupendra Bagla) are correct and the said loan is Cogent Ventures India Limited. But very next day, 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 Cogent Ventures India Ltd as ‘Unsecured Loan’ on the basis of Bank account transaction and status of the said company. The officers of the bank are clearly making such false

statements at the instance of their higher management, who was acting in conspiracy with other persons to get hold of the property. It is pertinent to mention here that both the above letters dated 11/11/2009 and 12/11/2009 are contradictory to each other and state very different fact which itself proves that the bank has fraudulently forged and conspired against the Bagla’s family to grab the Okhla property. The brief facts of the case are mentioned hereunder : 1. Mr. Virendra Kumar Sharma, owner of a property situated at E- 41/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the “said property”) 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. whereas 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 culminated into an FIR No. 149/09 dated 15/10/2009 at PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Subsequently Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. also 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 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 allegedly executed by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla and stated that they were having only photocopies of the same. 4. It is stated that by a letter dated 11.11.2009 the Kotak Mahindra Bank misrepresented to the police that the allegations in the said FIR No. 149/2009 are correct and the said loan is Cogent Ventures India Limited. 5. It is also submitted that very next day, 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

Cogent Ventures India Ltd as ‘Unsecured Loan’ on the basis of Bank account transaction and status of the said company. The officers of the bank are clearly makingsuch false statements at the instance of their highermanagement, who wasacting in conspiracy with other persons to get hold of the property. It is pertinent to mention here that both the aboveletters dated 11/11/2009 and 12.11.2009 arecontradictory to each other and state very different factwhich itself proves that the bank has fraudulently forgedand conspired against the Bagla’s family to grab the Okhla property. 6. It is submitted that Charge sheet dated 24/05/2011 in FIR No. 149/09 was filed before the MM Court for taking the cognizance against Bhupendra Bagla U/s 420/467/468/471 of IPC. 7. The Court later 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 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.” 8. It is submitted that Mr. Bhupendra Bagla has 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 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 with charges under Section U/s 420/464/465/467/471/120B/ 34/109 of IPC. The Ld. M.M., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, on 14.10.2019 has 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, in the matter of a complaint filed by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla under Section 156(3) read with Section 200 of Cr. PC. 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 has been revealed after the trail of the matter. 10. Further, it is also mentioned in Court order dated 14.10.2019 as- “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 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. ….”