Bangalore District Court
M/S. Srimatha Mahila Sahakari vs Mrs.B.R.Vasanth Kokila on 26 March, 2021
1 CC 22088 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDL.CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 26th day of March 2021
:PRESENT:
SMT.ROOPA K., BAL, LLB.
XXVI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : C.C No.22088/2016
Complainant : M/s. Srimatha Mahila Sahakari
Bank Niyamitha,
No.403/803, VIII Main Road,
X Cross, Shasthrynagar,
BSK II Stage,
Bangalore - 560 070.
Represented by its
Manager,
Smt.Premakala
(By S.S.Srinivasa Rao- Adv.)
Vs.
Accused : Mrs.B.R.Vasanth Kokila,
Residing at No.322,
III Stage, 4th Block,
8th Main Road,
Basaweswaranagar,
Bangalore - 560 079.
(By Ravishankar T P- Adv.)
Offence complained of : U/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused is acquitted.
Date of Order : 26.03.2021.
2 CC 22088 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Accused for the offense punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The brief facts of Complainant case is that, complainant is Co-operative bank registered under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The accused is the member of Complainant society and she has applied for loan of Rs.30 lakhs from Complainant for the purpose of purchase of flat bearing No.N1304 Purva Highlands was under construction situated at Kanakapura Road, near Kumaran's School. The loan was sanctioned and disbursed on 02.07.2010 vide loan account No.OEL687. Further in addition to the above said loan, she the has stood as a guarantor to the loan availed by Smt.Shobha a relative of accused for Rs.15 lakhs to purchase vehicle bearing No.KA-01-B-9516 a Hi-tech Bus for Passengers of Ashok Layland vide loan account No. VL55.
3. Further the accused has also applied for loan of Rs.30 lakhs for purchase of 3 vehicles bearing No.KA-01-C-4529, 3 CC 22088 of 2016 KA-01-C-4524 and KA-01-C-8764 of Swaraj Mazda. The Complainant has sanctioned and disbursed the loan of Rs.30 lakhs on 26.06.2012 vide loan account No.VL86. Further Smt.Sujatha a relative of accused has availed loan of Rs.10 lakhs to purchase vehicles a Mini Bus of Swaraj Maza LP 410 FBV SML ISUZU Ltd. The accused has signed all the document for loan transaction. After availing the loan they have not repaid the loan amount as per the terms of said loan.
4. Therefore the Complainant has issued notice and reminders to the borrower. In-spite of issue of several notice and reminders, they have not paid the amount. Therefore the Complainant filed a dispute before Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Bangalore for recovery of loan dues.
5. Further, in the said proceedings the son of accused has appeared and undertaken to repay the loan. Thereafter the accused has undertaken to settle the above dues arising out of said 4 loans i.e. OEL 687, VL 86, VL55 and VL 71. The accused has issued cheque bearing No.003171 dated 30.07.2016 drawn on M/s. Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-
4 CC 22088 of 2016 operative Bank Ltd. Basaveshwaranagar Branch, Bangalore for Rs.66,85,690/- towards discharge of liability. On presentation of the same for encashment the cheque was returned with an endorsement as "Funds insufficient" with bankers memo dated 04.08.2016. After receiving the endorsement, the Complainant society issued legal notice on 06.08.2016 through RPAD, the same was served to the accused. In-spite of service of notice he has not paid any amount. Hence the complaint.
6. After filing this complaint, this court took cognizance of the offence and registered the criminal case against the accused on basis of sworn statement affidavit and documents produced along with it. Thereafter the summons was issued to accused, in response to summons, he appeared before the court through his counsel and he was enlarged on bail. Thereafter plea was recorded and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The Complainant society represented by its - Manager by name Smt. Premakala has been examined as PW1 and she 5 CC 22088 of 2016 has produced 53 documents as per Ex-P1 to 53. on the other hand the accused has not adduced any defence evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments of both sides.
9. After hearing the arguments and on perusal of entire evidence available on record the following points arise for consideration.
1) Whether the Complainant society proves that, the accused to discharge of legally recoverable debt or other liability issued the alleged cheque bearing No.003171 dated 30.07.2016 drawn on M/s. Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Basaveshwaranagar Branch, Bangalore for Rs.66,85,690/-?
2) Whether the Complainant society proves that, on presentation of said cheque, same was returned unpaid as "Funds insufficient"
and despite of giving legal notice, he failed to pay the cheque amount, thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act ?
3) What order?
6 CC 22088 of 2016
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: In the Negative, Point No.3: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS POINT NO.1 and 2 :
Both points 1 and 2 are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
11. The Complainant society represented by its manager by name Smt.Premakala who has been examined as PW1 by way of an affidavit which is replica of complaint averments. In support of her chief evidence she has also produced 53 documents as per Ex.P1 to P53. According to the Complainant the accused has issued the alleged cheque herein towards discharge of her liability towards the loans borrowed by her and as a guarantor to the loan borrowerd by one Smt.Shobha and Smt.Sujatha. Further on presentation of said cheque, the same was returned unpaid as "Funds 7 CC 22088 of 2016 insufficient" on 04.08.2016 as per Ex.P3. Thereafter Complainant society issued the demand notice to the address of accused and same was served,
12. Per contra, it appears from the cross examination of PW1 that the accused has contended that, PW1 has no valid authorization to file and to depose in this case; further she has not issued the alleged cheque for discharge of liability as contended by the Complainant. The blank cheques which were given as security for another loan transaction, were misused and filed the false case. Therefore he contends that, he is not liable to pay the amount under the cheque. On such other ground he prays to dismiss the same.
13. Before discussion of evidence and documents on record, it is necessary to mention that, what is the legal position of law u/s 138 of NI Act. Because it is true that, once the issuance of cheque is admitted by the accused/drawer, the presumption under sec.139 of the NI Act comes into play.
14. As per the said sec.139 NI Act, it shall be presumed that the issuance of cheque was for the discharge, in whole or 8 CC 22088 of 2016 in part, of debt or other liability. The effect of the presumption has been explained in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v/s Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC
441. It has been held time and again that the said presumption is a rebuttable one and its only effect is to shift the initial burden of proof on the accused.
15. It is also well settled that in order to rebut the presumption and shift back the burden of proof on the complainant, the accused is only required to raise a probable defence and he cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof i.e. standard of proof for rebutting the presumption raised under sec,139 NI Act is "preponderance of probabilities". It is also well settled that the accused can rebut the said presumption either directly or by bringing on record preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. The accused, for this purpose, is also entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the complainant as well.
16. It is also held that sec.139 NI Act is an example of reverse onus clause and the accused cannot be expected to 9 CC 22088 of 2016 disprove the existence of legally recoverable debt or liability by direct evidence. In fact, it is also conceivable that in some cases, the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his own. However, at the same time it is also to be remembered that bare denial of the existence of legally enforceable debt or other liability cannot be said to be sufficient to rebut the presumption and something which is probable has to be brought on record to shift the onus back to the complainant.
17. In the back ground of rival contention of both the parties, let me see whether the complainant is succeed in proving its case or the accused is succeed in probablise his defense to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant under section 139 of NI Act.
18. Firstly, the learned advocate for accused has cross- examined PW1 at length. It was suggested to PW1 that, she has no valid authorization to file the case and to depose on behalf of the Complainant and same was created. The witness has also admitted in her cross-examination dated 01.03.2017 that, "It is true that resolution has not passed in the Board meeting, authorizing me to file complaint and conduct the 10 CC 22088 of 2016 case ". Though she denied the suggestion that, she has not been given property authorization to conduct case but her cross-examination dated 19.05.2018 she has admitted the suggestions as follows:
" ಸಸ ಇಚಸ ಹಹಳಕಯ ಜಜತಗ ಅಧಕರ ಪತ ತವನನ ನ ಹಜರನಪಡಸದನ. ಸದರ ಅಧಕರ ಪತ ತವ ದಜರನ ದಖಲಸನವ ಸಸದರರದಲ ಇದದದದರ ಅದನನ ನ ದಜರನ ಜಜತಗ ಹಜರನ ಪಡಸನತತದ ಎಸದರ ಸಕ ಆ ಸಮಯಕಕ ಅಧಕರ ಪತ ತ ಇರಲಲಲ ಎಸದನ ನನಡಯನತತರ ನಸತರ ಸಸಇಚಸ ಹಹಳಕಯ ಸಮಯದಲ ಅಧಕರ ಪತ ತವನನ ನ ಪಡದನಕಜಸಡನ ನನಯಲಯಕಕ ಹಜರನಪಡಸದನ ಎಸದರ ಸರ. ಸದರ ಅಧಕರ ಪತ ತವನನ ನ ದನಸಕ 05.09.2016 ಎಸದನ ಹಸದನ ದನಸಕವನನ ನ ನಮಜದಸ ಪಡದನಕಜಸಡದನ ಎಸದರ ಸರ" .
19. Thus the learned advocate for accused has submitted in his argument that as on date of filing of complaint PW1 has no valid authorization to file the case and also submitted that, PW1 has clearly admitted that at the time of sworn statement she has obtained authorization letter by mentioning the earlier date.
20. In addition to that, after completion of evidence and after the arguments on accused side, the complainant has
11 CC 22088 of 2016 produced board resolution extract as per Ex.P52 and P53. On perusal of Ex.P53 which is dated 12.05.2015 and in Ex.P52 dated 27.01.2015 after the para no.(e) it was mentioned at 'resolved that Manager to represent bank to sign to give evidence, present or take back documents in legal proceedings.' Therefore PW1 has produced this document showing that in the board meeting dated 27.01.2015 it was resolved by the board that the CEO can authorize the Manager to represent the bank etc...
21. In this regard the learned advocate for accused has cross examined PW1 and suggested that at Ex.P52 after para no(e), there was no paragraph number, the same was created to patch up the lacuna which was elicited in the cross-examination.
22. Further PW1 denied the suggestion that, the said matter mentioned as 'resolved' at Ex.P52 was not in the agenda of said meeting. Further admitted the suggestion that, she has not produced the document to show that the agenda matters mentioned at Ex.P52 and 53 were approved in the next meeting.
12 CC 22088 of 2016
23. The accused strongly contended that, Ex.P1 is not a valid authorization and PW1 has no valid authority to depose in the case. It is true that from the cross-examination of PW1 dated 19.05.2018, she has clearly admitted that as on date of filing of case, she was not having authorization letter, at the time of sworn statement, she has obtained the same by mentioning the earlier date.
24. In this regard the learned advocate for accused relied upon a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2001(6) KLJ 193 in between Dr. Umagangadhar vs. Classic Coffee and Spices Pvt. Ltd., Chikkamagaluru wherein it was held that, there should be proper authorization by a company of a person to launch a prosecution on behalf of the company, from the time of filing of the complaint, in absence of the which the prosecute would not be validly launched and is to be quashed. And also held that, the prosecution launched on behalf of the company by a person not authorized on the date of filing of the complaint, cannot be regularized by subsequent authorization by the company, since the complaint was not maintainable on the date of its filing.
13 CC 22088 of 2016
25. In another decision reported in ILR 2007 KAR 3155 in between Director Maruti Feeds and Farms Pvt. Ltd., vs. Basanna Pattekar wherein it was held by, Hon'ble High Court of Karantaka that, since the company is a juristic person, any person on behalf of the company has to be authorized by the company under the Articles of Association or by a separate resolution to depose on behalf of the company and the Judgment of acquittal was upheld.
26. The learned advocate for accused also relied upon the decision reported in LAWS(KAR) 2009 131 in between GOVINDA RAM CHANANI VS. LATHA wherein it was held that, cheque was issued to the partnership firm, the Complainant must necessarily be a payee or holder in due course or must be an authorized person to file complaint on behalf of the payee or holder in due course. A person who is handling the whole business affairs and management of the partnership firm cannot file the compliant in absence of authority.
14 CC 22088 of 2016
27. Another decision reported in ILR 2007 KAR 5126 in between Omshakthi SC/ST and Minority Credit Co- operative Society Ltd. Vs. M.Venkatesh wherein it was held that, presentation of the complaint by the society through its President without authorization is bad in law.
28. Thus, the learned advocate for accused has vehemently submitted in his argument that, on the date of filing of the case, PW1 has no valid authorization, hence the same is not maintainable.
29. On the other hand the learned advocate for Complainant has submitted that as per Ex.P52 the Manager of the Complainant society was duly authorized in the Board Resolution. As on date of filing of the case, she was having authority. Further submitted that, substantive rights should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds of procedural irregularity.
30. In this regard he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 (6) SCC 660 in between United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar and others, wherein 15 CC 22088 of 2016 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that, a person may be expressly authorize to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for eg. the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a Power of Attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence there off and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers the Corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be expressed or implied. And also observed that, substantive rights should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds of procedural irregularity so as to ensure that no in-justice done to any party.
31. Therefore the learned advocate for Complainant has submitted in his arguments that, mere on irregularity the substantive right of Complainant society cannot be defeated, just because the PW1 has admitted in her cross-examination that, there was no authorization as on date of filing of the case.
16 CC 22088 of 2016
32. I have gone through the above cited decisions, which were relied by the learned advocate for accused and learned advocate for Complainant as well. The benefit of the ratio held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1996 (6) SCC 660 is not applicable to the case on hand for the simple reason that, the facts and circumstances of the case herein are totally different.
33.Further the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above cited supra, on which the learned advocate for accused has relied, were amply applicable to the case on hand. Admittedly as on date of filing of the cae PW1 was not duly authorized by the CEO as per the Board Resolution. Admittedly this authorization letter was obtained at the time of sworn statement by mentioning the earlier date. Therefore subsequently though the Complainant has produced the Board Resolution extract, but there was no specific resolution in favour of Manager of Complainant society to file the case on hand against the accused. Under such circumstances this court is of the considered opinion that, as on date of filing of the case PW1 / Manager of the 17 CC 22088 of 2016 Complainant Society was not having valid authorization.
34. Secondly, it was contended by the accused that, the alleged cheque was given to another loan transaction at Complainant society and the same was misused and filed the false case. According to the Complainant the alleged cheque was given by the accused after filing the dispute before Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. PW1 has also admitted in her cross-examination at page 13 that, the accused has given the alleged cheque after filing dispute before JRCS. But admitted that she has not produced any document to show that the accused has given alleged cheque for discharge of his liability before JRCS proceedings.
35. It is pertinent to note that, admittedly the Complainant has not produced any other document for having receipt of the alleged cheque from the accused to discharge the liability towards loan borrowed by her and being a guarantor to the loan borrowed by Smt.Shobha and Smt.Sujatha. On perusal of Ex.P53 - Meeting of Board Directors of Complainant society held on 12.05.2015. At page 18 CC 22088 of 2016 No.2 last para - it was mentioned as "it was decided to file the suit against all 16 vehicle loan borrowers, also against Mr.Manjunth B.S. and Vasanth Kokila who have given cheque as guarantor to loan "
36. Thus, from this averments at Ex.P53 it shows that the alleged cheque was obtained much earlier either it may be at the time of sanction of loan or subsequently, but before the alleged date of board meeting. The Ex.P2 is dated 30.07.2016 and same was presented to the bank on 04.08.2016. If really the accused has issued the alleged cheque on 30.07.2016 during pendency of JRCS proceeding; certainly the same could have mentioned in the order sheet, but admittedly it was not mentioned.
37. If it is considered for a while, that as per Ex.P53 they have collected cheque from the accused and B.S.Manjunath much prior to the date of Ex.P53; they would have issue notice to the accused before presentation of the cheque to the bank calling upon the accused to maintain sufficient balance in his account to honour the cheque towards discharge of her
19 CC 22088 of 2016 liability as a borrower and the guarantor to the loan of Shobha and Smt.Sujatha. But there is no such notice was issued.
38. Under such circumstances, no one can expect that the cheque will be presented for such a huge amount of Rs.66,85,690/- to keep the balance in the account to honour the cheque. From the above finding it is clear that the Complainant failed to prove that the accused has issued the alleged cheque to discharge her liability under the alleged loan transactions.
39. Further it was suggested to PW1 and admitted by her in the cross-examination dated 23.11.2018 that, this case has been filed with respect to 4 loan transactions. It was also admitted by her that after filing of this case the loan account No.OEL 687 and VL 71 were cleared and also admitted that under the alleged cheque the amount of said two loan transactions was also covered, but the said fact was not brought to the notice of this court .
40. PW1 further admitted that, the accused is not a guarantor or borrower to the loan account No.VL 71. In spite 20 CC 22088 of 2016 of it, they have covered the alleged loan amount of VL 71 under this cheque. Therefore it was suggested to PW1 that the accused was not liable to pay the cheque amount. The Complainant failed to produce any document to show that the accused has undertaken the liability to pay the loan amount which was covered under VL-71 though she was not a borrower or a gurantor and issued the cheque towards the alleged four loan transactions.
41. Further on perusal of loan documents, Ex.P7 - application for loan and security of immovable property. But they have not obtained any immovable property as security for this loan transaction OEL 687. Further Ex.P10 is the loan application of VL 55 obtained by Smt.Shobha S the accused is the guarantor, but no vehicle has been hypothecated under the said application.
42. In Ex.P10, the column to mentioned the particulars of vehicles / equipment to be purchased is blank. In the same manner in Ex.P16 which is pertaining to VL 71 which is availed by Sujatha P.Y the accused is neither a guarantor nor a surety.
21 CC 22088 of 2016
43. Another Ex.P26 is the loan agreement pertaining to VL 86 thought the accused was shown as borrower but no tangible property was hypothecated under the said loan transaction. Ex.P31 is the letter given by the accused to the Complainant about a purchase of flat under the alleged loan transaction.
44. On total reading of the evidence on record, it appears that the Complainant society has not followed any terms and conditions while sanctioning the loan. With all these irregularities the Complainant might have sanctioned the loan but to fix the criminal liability on the accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, the Complainant failed to establish the issuance of alleged cheque by the accused by assuring to honour the alleged cheque for huge amount of Rs.66,85,690/-. As I already stated above, the blank cheque which was taken as security can be utilized for the liability towards the loan amount but which is subject to the outstanding loan due installments only.
22 CC 22088 of 2016
45. In this regard I relied upon the decision reported in 2016 (10) SCC 458 in between Sampelly Sathaynarayana Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, post dated cheque described as security towards repayment of installment of already disbursement loan amount, the proceeding u/s 138 of NI Act is maintainable in case of dishonour of such cheque. Further, observed that, once loan amount was disbursed and as per the agreement installments had fallen due on date of issuance of cheque, dishonour of such cheque would fall u/s 138 of NI Act and such issuance of cheque undoubtedly represents outstanding liability.
46. If it is accepted for a while that,the complainant has utilized the blank cheque, the complainant has to use the alleged cheque for outstanding liability of accused i.e. for recovery of due installments. But they have used the cheque for entire loan including to the loan amount of Sujatha to which the accused is neither a guarantor nor a borrower without intimating the accused about presenting the cheque for entire 4 loan dues. The complainant failed to produced 23 CC 22088 of 2016 any iota of documents to show that before recalling the entire loan, they have issued notice to accused and the accused was aware about the presentation of the cheque for recovery of entire loans. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to accept that the accused could have maintain sufficient balance in her account to honor the cheque.
47. Further if the cheque is taken by the complainant from the accused and guarantor as security towards repayment of the loan amount, such cheque cannot be said to have been issued by the guarantor towards discharge of existing debt unless there is agreement between them to present the cheque for its encashment. In absence of such agreement, in order to enforce the liability of the accused to repay the entire loan amount, the complainant has to demand repayment of the loan from the borrower / guarantor by issuing him notice in writing or by making oral demand duly intimating the borrower that the loan amount towards repayment of loan of which the cheque was given by him to the complainant will be encashed by presenting it to the bank. If the borrower / guarantor does not repay the loan amount, 24 CC 22088 of 2016 despite such demand made by the complainant than the complainant is entitle to present such cheque for encashment.
48. In the present case as I already stated above, the evidence of complainant does not disclose that they have issued notice before presenting the cheque for encashment of 4 loans. The accused would not have venture to issue the cheque, that too for huge amount of Rs.66,85,690/- without sufficient amount in her account, so as to welcome the criminal prosecution to attract penal provisions. There is no agreement between the accused and complainant to fill the blank cheque to file a criminal case for recovery of entire loan amount in lump-sum that too by including the loan amount of Smt.Shobha to which the accused neither a guarantor nor a borrower.
49. Therefore on total reading of entire evidence, it appears that the defence put forward by the accused that cheque was not given for discharge of debt appears to be probable and convincing. The presumption under section 118 and 139 of NI Act stands rebutted. Under such circumstances 25 CC 22088 of 2016 the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Hence, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
POINT No.3
50. In view of the findings on point No. 1 and 2 the accused needs to be acquitted for the alleged offence. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted from the alleged offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I.Act.
Accused is set at liberty and her bail
bond and surety bond shall stand
cancelled.
(Typed directly on computer to my dictation by the stenographer in the chamber , corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of March 2021) (ROOPA K.) XXVIth ACMM, Bangalore City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
PW.1 : Prema Kala
26 CC 22088 of 2016
Witness examined for the accused:
DW1 : Nil
List of Documents marked for the Complainant:
Ex. P1 Authorization.
Ex. P2 Original Cheque.
Ex. P2(a) Signature of the accused on the cheque.
Ex. P3 Endorsement.
Ex. P4 Notice.
Ex. P5 RPAD Receipt.
Ex. P6 RPAD Acknowledgment.
Ex. P7 Loan Application.
Ex. P8 On demand pro-note.
Ex. P9 Receipt.
Ex. P10 Loan application.
Ex. P11 On demand pronote
Ex. P12 Receipt.
Ex. P13 Loan application.
Ex. P14 On demand pronote
Ex. P15 Receipt
Ex. P16 Loan application
Ex. P17 On demand pro-note
Ex. P18 Receipt
Ex. P19 Complaint
Ex. P20 to 23 Statement of accounts
Ex. P24 & 25 Certified copy of the order sheet and petition in
dispute No.ADR/UBF/649/2015-16
Ex. P26 Loan agreement
Ex. P27 Hypothecation agreement
Ex. P28 to 30 Form No.34
Ex. P31 Letter from Vaantha Kokila
Ex. P32 Letter dated 28.07.2015
Ex. P33 Letter dated 04.02.2010 from Poorvankara
Projects
Ex. P34 & 35 Certified copy of the order sheet and petition in
dispute No.ADR/UBF/650/2015-16
27 CC 22088 of 2016
Ex. P36 Loan agreement.
Ex. P37 Hypothecation agreement.
Ex. P38 Letter dated 02.04.2009.
Ex. P39 Letter from NRS Travels.
Ex. P40 & 41 Certified copy of the order sheet and petition in dispute No.ADR/UBF/684/2015-16.
Ex. P42 Loan agreement. Ex. P43 USL and OSL Bond. Ex. P44 Letter from NRS Travels.
Ex. P45 & 46 Certified copy of the order sheet and petition in dispute No.ADR/UBF/763/2015-16.
Ex. P47 Loan Agreement. Ex. P48 Hypothecation agreement. Ex. P49 Letter from Sujatha P. Ex. P50 Letter dated 17.06.2015. Ex. P51 Letter from NRS Travels. Ex. P52 Certified copy of Board Resolution. Ex. P53 Certified copy of Board Resolution.
List of Documents marked for the accused:
XXVI ACMM, Bangalore.