SPEED POST/COURIER/HAND DELIVERY

OPEN LETTER TO MR. ANAND GOPAL MAHINDRA, EX-DIRECTOR

OF KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED

Without Prejudice
Dated: 30.12.2019

Mr. Anand Gopal Mahindra,

Ex-Director,
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
Goolestan,
65, Nepean Sea Road, Malabar Hill,
Mumbai - 400006.

Also at :
Gateway Building
Apollo Bunder
Near Gateway of India
Mumbai-400 001

Sub: Regarding your role in Kotak Mahindra Bank’s frauds, forgery

and illegalities committed against the applicants herein and
making their lives as miserable putting the same at stake.

Ref: Complaint of malicious prosecution and defamation by Bagla

Family, against Kotak Mahindra Bank and Others including
Uday S. Kotak, MD & CEO and Anand Mahindra, Ex-Director;
and Legal Notice dated 13/08/2019, 20/12/2019 and Letter
dated 19/12/2019.

Sir,

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);

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 Kotak
Mahindra Bank and its Directors/ Officials. The Applicant(s) had

1|Page
issued a Legal Notice dated 13/08/2019 through their Advocate and
letter dated 19.12.2019 of the complainants, for malicious prosecution
and defamation against the Applicants. However, no reply has yet been
received at your.

An FIR No. 0120/2019 dated 19/10/2019 has been registered under

section 420/34 of IPC, against Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and six other
accused including Mr. Uday S. Kotak, MD & CEO, vide court order
dated 14.10.2019 of M.M., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, arising out
of a complaint filed by the Applicant 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.

In the said order dated 14.10.2019, the Ld. MM Court at New Delhi has
directed as under –

“This court is of the considered view that matter

discloses Cognizable Offence and it is relevant to mention
here that in FIR No. 149/09 PS B.K. Road lodged by proposed
accused no. 7 against the complainant, complainant has
been discharged

......This Court is of the 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. In these circumstances, SHO concerned is directed
to register FIR in this matter and investigate the same as per
law. Copy of this order be sent to SHO concerned for
compliance”.

At the time of the above offence committed by Kotak Bank and its
official, you were also in Board of Directors of Kotak Mahindra
Bank which was instrumental in passing a resolution in the Board
Meeting held on 25.03.2009, to file an O.A. before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Delhi. The said entire activity of the Bank was
in proper knowledge of the board that took the decision to file the
said O.A. before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi and authorised
some official to take the action in the matter. Therefore, you
including other directors jointly and severely were /are directly
responsible/ liable for the affairs and conduct of the Kotak
Mahindra Bank.

2|Page
After registration of the said FIR for committing fraud and forgery by
Kotak Mahindra Bank and others, Bagla family has also filed a
complaint with the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi
for malicious prosecution of the applicants, under Section 200 r/w
190 Cr. P.C. and for taking cognizance of offences Committed U/s
211 (IInd Part), 499/500, 501, 502 r/w 120B/34 IPC, against
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & others.

The applicants in the Legal Notice dated 13.08.2019 to Kotak Mahindra

Bank Limited and others have sought damages of Rs. 102.5 crores on
account of malicious prosecution, defamation and cost of litigations has
been claimed and all the facts and evidence have been mentioned about
the forgery committed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & others. It is
submitted that the said legal notice was not sent to all the directors of
the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd at the relevant time reason being we had
no knowledge of involvement of the Directors /person in the said
conspiracy.

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 was conspiracy, cheating and forgery of certain documents
which has resulted into registration of the case FIR No. 120/2019 at PS
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. This FIR has now been transferred to
District Investigation Unit (DIU), New Delhi District, Mandir Marg, New
Delhi for further investigation.

As you are aware, Kotak Mahindra Bank is established under the

provisions and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India having branches all
over the country. The affairs of the Bank are being managed and
controlled by its Managing Director & CEO Mr. Uday Kotak who is
responsible for its day to day affairs. The Managing Director & CEO and
Regional Manager (Delhi NCR) are directly controlling the affairs of the
branch offices of Kotak Bank from its head office and are the decision-
making authorities. The applicant/complainant herein in our
complaint were not aware of the involvement of certain person
including the then Directors of Kotak Mahindra Bank, therefore had
primarily made them as “unknown” accused. Now, by a search report
issued by a chartered Company Secretary, it revealed and verified that
Mr. Anand Mahindra along with certain other persons were Directors of
Kotak Mahindra Bank at the relevant time. The complainant
accordingly made them accused / party to the said complaint of
malicious prosecution. In the complaint apart from one Virendra
Kumar Sharma, Kotak Mahindra Bank and its Directors & Company
Secretary and other officers namely Mr. Uday Suresh Kotak, Managing

3|Page
Director, The Regional Manager, Kotak Bank (Delhi & NCR), Mr. Anand
Mahindra, Mr. Shivaji Dam, Mr. Chengalath Jayram, Dipak Gupta, Ms.
Bina Chandarana, Company Secretary, Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad
(The Then Deputy Manager, Legal), Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Officer, Kotak
Bank and CVIL Infra Limited and Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd.,
were made accused.

Now, the Applicants would like to ask you, being at the helm of affairs
of Kotak Mahindra Bank at the relevant time, Why a conspiracy was
committed against the applicants? and as a key person why you
have not taken any action against the errant officials of Kotak
Mahindra Bank 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 had to suffer a lot, not only physically but also socially,
mentally as well as financially and has to face the following
consequences:

1. Mr. Bhupendra 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 applicants 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, the applicants would like
to ask you to give the answer of following questions why such illegal
action was taken against the Applicants?

4|Page
Question 1 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 the Bank
had not submitted the originals of these particular
documents before Ld. DRT in support of their case?

Question 2 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 3 Does power of attorney and affidavit can be treated as

title documents as per the Bank’s rule?

Question 4 Can a mortgage/charge be created on a property on

the basis of power of attorney and affidavit?

Question 5 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
information of ownership of said Premises stating that
Bhupendra Bagla approached the Bank for mortgage
of the said premises?

Question 6 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 7 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?

5|Page
Question 8 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 9 Whether lease documents of the said Premises were

not shared by the said company and Cogent EMR
Solutions Limited with Kotak Bank at the time of loan
sanctioned?

Question 10 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 11 When Bank’s 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 Station Barakhamba Road, New
Delhi and at whose behest?

Question 12 Why the complaint dated 17.09.2009 was filed against

Mr. Bhupendra Bagla and Mrs. Pushpa Bagla whereas
there were other guarantors & Directors of the said
loan facility? Whether both these were specific target
at the Bank?

Question 13 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 14 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 and Mr. Anand G. Mahindra, Director of the
Kotak Bank were present in the said Board Meeting

6|Page
 held on 25.03.2009? Who were present in the Board
Meeting when the said resolution was passed?

Question 15 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 16 What was the agenda for the Board Meeting to pass
the said Board Resolution?

Question 17 Kotak Mahindra Bank has mentioned in its 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 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 18 Kotak Mahindra 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 19 Whether mortgage of any immovable property,

registration of charge is compulsory or not?

7|Page
Question 20 Had Kotak Mahindra Bank asked the company or Mr.
Bhupendra Bagla to create charge in ROC? If not,
why?

Question 21 If charge was not registered, can it be understood that

Bank had not complied with all the legal formalities in
respect of mortgaging the said property/Premises?

Question 22 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 23 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 24 If it is presumed that Affidavit dated 24.08.2009 was

signed and given by Mr. Bhupendra Bagla, whether
Kotak Mahindra Bank had read and confirmed the
language of that 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?

Question 25 Had not Kotak Bank clarified to the said Company by

way of a letter dated 12/09/2009 that the loan
sanctioned was without any collateral security and
loan was an unsecured loan?

Question 26 By simple reading of the language of the said letter

dated 12/09/2009, it seems that the 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

8|Page
 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 said 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 was not
mortgaged in favour of Bank, therefore they did not
proceed against the property whereas they had filed
an OA before the Debt Recovery Tribunal!!!

- Now, what sort of due diligence was done by the

Bank at the time of sanctioning the said loan
facility!!!

Question 27 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 one. Why such contradiction and what
the Bank and its officials have to say on it?

Despite of the above questions which remained unanswered, there are

also further question regarding governance in banking systems and
involvement of good corporate in White Colour Crimes. The applicants
are aware that today, Mr. Anand Mahindra, Chairman of Mahindra

9|Page
Group, is a well-known name in the corporate world, not just in India
but in the entire World. Honoured with about one and a half dozen
awards such as (outstanding contribution in the business field, Knight
of the Order of Merit’ by the President of the French Republic,
Leadership Award by American India Foundation, Business Leader
Award for the year award, Harvard Business School Alumni
Achievement Award, Business Leader of the Year 2011, Global
Leadership Award, Sustainable Development Leadership Award etc.),
We are also aware that Mr. Mahindra gave one lakh rupees to Mr. Uday
Kotak in 1985 to start a business. Uday Kotak also did not disappoint
him & after 2003 Kotak Mahindra Bank was placed in some of the
leading banks in India.

But with this success, some critical questions also started to arise
against Mr. Uday S. Kotak and Mr. Anand Mahindra. Does success
mean ruining a weak and small businessman? Can success be
achieved only by conspiracy, cheating, forgery etc? Where did those
values and ethics went that Uday Kotak discredit Mr. Anand Mahindra,
which led to his separation from Kotak Mahindra Bank? Today all these
questions are haunting Mr. Uday Kotak, and possibly he has no
answer.

 Why Mr. Anand Mahindra was ceased to be a promoter of Kotak

Mahindra bank in 2013 but continue as a non-executive
director? The board of Kotak Mahindra Bank has already
approved the exit of Mr. Anand Mahindra as a promoter as per
his request. What was the reason for this silent exit?

 The Kotak and Mahindras started Kotak Mahindra Bank as a

joint venture in 2003 because there are many conditions that a
bank have to fulfill for obtaining licenses from RBI and at that
time none of them was in the position to fulfill all those
conditions solely that’s why they jointly formed Kotak Mahindra
group. But in 2009 Mr. Anand Mahindra get separated from
Kotak Mahindra due to some managerial issues.

Mr. Uday S. Kotak always talks about Value and ethics in business.
But in practice, he does exactly the opposite. Certainly trade means
profit making to him. But business doesn’t mean fierce competition,
ruining the other, conspiring and trapping the opponent etc which is in
vogue these days for Kotak Bank. This creates feeling of insecurity and
leads to crime. Kotak Mahindra Bank and its M.D. Mr. Uday S. Kotak
did the same thing through a conspiracy against a prominent
businessman Dr. Bagla and his family and has ruined them completely.

10 | P a g e
Today, the Bagla family is acquitted / discharged with respect from the
said false and frivolous case of Kotak Mahindra Bank after a lengthy
legal process (about 10 years). Again after the order of MM, An FIR has
also been filed against Kotak Mahindra Bank and its M.D Uday Kotak
including others. But who would understand the pain of the loss
suffered by Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla's family in the last 10 years in
every way.

Of course today, with many new enticing promises, they are moving
forward by losing value and ethics, ruining many people like Dr. Bagla,
but many cases have been registered against them, too. Mr. Uday
Kotak owes his success not just to his hard work but also to Mr. Anand
Mahindra. But did they share all these things?

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
of taking appropriate legal action against such bullying and intention to
bring disrepute to Bagla family.

11 | P a g e
Sir, after the registration of FIR against Kotak Mahindra Bank and its
officials, including your goodself, the issue has already been
highlighted in the media. We are restraining ourselves to approach the
media as we have utmost regards for your goodself and the Mahindra
Group of companies. We seek an appropriate concern and redressal of
our matter at your end.

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 by Kotak Mahindra Bank and 19.12.2019 by your goodself
and no steps are taken to redress the grievances of the undersigned.
Now, the Applicants suggests and request that being at the helm of
affairs of Kotak Mahindra Bank at a certain point of time, 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 sincerely,

(Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla)

For Self and on behalf of
The complainants.

La – Magasin No.405, 4th Floor,

63 S.V. Road,
Santacruz (W)
Mumbai – 400 054.

12 | P a g e