AUTHORITIES CAN BEGIN WITH LEAD QUESTIONS AS UNDER TO FIND TRUTH!!!

A SOME INITIAL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE POSED TO GTB AND/OR THE CONCERNED OFFICER WHO IS TO LOOK AFTER THE AFFAIRS OF GTB :-

v WHAT IS YOUR REPLY TO LETTER DATED 19-5-2004 TO MODY?

v WHY YOU HAVE IGNORED TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS AGAINST JALUNDHWALA AND CORE HEALTH CARE ??

v WHY DID YOU RAISE LIMIT FROM 11 CRORES TO 12.5 CRORES WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF AUGUST 1998 TO MARCH 1999?

v WHY ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF RUPMANGALM AND FLOVIN ARE NOT DEPOSITED WHILE CREATING CHARGE ON THE ASSETS OF RUPMANGALAM AND FLOVIN WHILE ONLY ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF SALE DEED DONE IN FAVOUR OF DHANYUSHYA HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BY YOU AT THE TIME OF CREATION OF CHARGE?

v WHY YOU WERE NOT CONCERNED TO HAVE YOUR PRESENCE FELT BY HAVING YOURSELF REPRESENTED THROUGH ADVOCATE IN CIVIL REVISION APPLIICATION 25 AND 26 BY AS WELL AS APPEAL FROM ORDER 176 AND CIVIL APPLICATION FILED BY ME.

v IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NATURAL FOR GTB TO HAVE LOOK AT THE B/SHEETOF CHL FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 1997 AND THE B/S HAD ALREAD GIVEN CLUE THAT AMERICAN EXPRESS HAD ALREADY FILED WINIDNG UP PETITION AND THE NEWS HAD ALREADY APPEARED IN NEWSPAPERS IN 1997.WHEN THIS WAS THE POSITION WHAT WAS THE NEED OF EXTENDING LOAN OF RS 11 CRORES TO CORE HEALTH CARE???

v WHY HAS THE BANK NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNIH VALUATION REPORT IN THE CITY CIVILSUIT 5827/01 WHICH SHOWS THAT VALUATION WAS DONE AND THE VALUER REPORT SHOWED THE PROPERTY ADMEASURING 3000 SQMETERS APPROX AT MARKET VALUATION REPORT OF RS 40,000/SQMETER.

v WHY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO CITY CIVIL SUIT 5827/01 DOES NOT REFLECT THAT AT THE TIME OF APPRAISAL AND SANCTION OF PROPOSAL FOR CREATION OF CHARGE THAT ROC RECORDS OF RUPAMANGLAM,FLOVIN,DHANYUSHYA HAD BEEN EXAMINED AND THE COPIES OF THE B/S FOR THE PERIOD ENDNG MARCH 1997 AND MARCH 98 FURNISHED SO AS TO REFLECT FACTS OF THE CASE ??

v WHY CERTIFICATE HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED FROM THE AUDITORS OF DHANYUSHYA AS WELL AS RUPMANGALM AND FLOVIN THAT THE SHARES AND DIRECTORSHIP FULLY VEST WITH DHANYUSHYA ??


v WHEN THERE WAS STAY ON THE PROPERTY BY THE REVENUED DEPARTMENT AS REFLECTED IN RECORD OF RIGHT IN AUGUST 1998 WHY AS A PRUDENT BANKER DID NOT FOLLOW CONSERVATIVE POLICY FOR REJECTING SUCH APPLICATION IN VIEW OF THE STAY ON THE PROPERTY???

v WHY HAVE YOU NOT FILED AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY IN AFO 176/2003 AND CIVIL APPLICATION 3110/2003???

v GTB’S TACIT SILENCE TO PARA 4 OF MY LETTER TO TH BANK CONFIRMS THAT GTB HAD PERSONAL GUARANTEE OF SUSHIL HANDA AS THEY HAVE NOT DENIED THE SAME.

v .WHY GTB HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY CERTIFICATES FROM THE AUDITOR KASHIPAREKH OF RUPMANGLAM AND FLOVIN THE PARTICUALRS CALLED FOR IN NOTCE ISSUED TO GTB ON 21-12-1999 ???

v WHO HAS TAKEN THE INITIATVE TO INFORM THE BANKERS ON BEHALF OF BANK???

v HOW COME SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS FORM MAINTAINED BY GTB (AS FURNISHED TO COURT COMMISSIONER) DOES NOT SHOW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF RESIGNATION OF MODY FAMILY DIRECTORS.???