RAJAN GUPTA vs CITI BANK

COMPLAINANT No. 1, Rajan Gupta is one of the directors of Hotel Picnic (P) Ltd. Hotel Picnic (P) Ltd. is complainant No. 2. Rajan Gupta has filed this complaint against the Citi Bank and his father and brother who are directors of Company for a direction to Citi Bank to remit the amount of Rs. 70,000/- in the account of the Company which according to the complainant had been illegally transferred by the Bank from the account of the Company to the personal account of Devendra Gupta, brother of the complainant. The opposite parties are : the Bank, its officials, N.D. Gupta, father of the complainant, Devendra Gupta, brother of the complainant. Company has five directors. Others are Ashok Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, brothers of the complainant. These two brothers are not impleaded as opposite parties. Name of the complainant is in fact Rajendra Kumar Gupta @ Rajan Gupta and it is not pleaded before us why he is described as Rajan Gupta in the memo of parties.

ALLEGATION is that Company by means of resolution authorised opening of account in the Citi Bank which was to be operated by Rajendra Gupta and Ashok Kumar Gupta, directors of the Company. However, on 1.1.1997 N.D. Gupta, father of the complainant and one of the directors instructed the Bank to transfer all the amount in the account of the Company which was in excess of Rs. 1.00 lakh. On these instructions the Bank did transfer the money, which according to the complainant is deficiency in service on the part of the Bank inasmuch as in view of the earlier resolution dated 14.7.1995 the account could not have been operated at the instance of N.D. Gupta. Written versions have been filed by both, by N.D. Gupta, Devendra Gupta and also by the Bank. It is the case of N.D. Gupta and Devendra Gupta that there was another resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing N.D. Gupta to issue instructions to the Bank to transfer the amount in excess of Rs. 1.00 lakh from the Company account to the account of Devendra Gupta. It was on this basis letter dated 1.1.1997 was written by N.D. Gupta to the Bank and the amount transferred. It is also the submission of both, N.D. Gupta and Devendra Gupta that complainant and Ashok Gupta were mismanaging the affairs of the Company and an action was taken to prevent them from misappropriation and diversification of the funds of the Company. To same effect, it is the reply of the City Bank.

It has also been pointed out that Civil Suit No. 848/1999 had been filed by the complainant in the Madras High Court where the plaintiffs are the Hotel Picnic (P) Ltd., Rajan Gupta, Ashok Kumar Gupta and the defendants are the father and other brothers of the complainants and some other defendants as well. In this suit Rajan Gupta, complainant has claimed various reliefs which were all dismissed by the High Court. We also find that there is on record an affidavit of Sanjay Gupta, one of the brothers of the complainant who denied that there is any Board meeting on 31.12.1996 wherein resolution was passed as alleged by the Bank and the N.D. Gupta, Devendra Gupta.

FROM the brief summary of the facts narrated above, it would be seen that it is a dispute basically between brothers and father and other family members. As to whether resolution dated 31.12.1996 contains forged signature of Sanjay Gupta would have to be gone into details by evidence. Then the facts remain how could it be alleged that the Bank was deficient if on the basis of instructions received from N.D. Gupta amount over and above Rs. 1.00 lakh was to be transferred in the account of Devendra Gupta, one of the directors of the Company. We do not think it is a fit case which can be tried in our summary jurisdiction and particularly when some of the issues are before the Madras High Court. We decline to entertain such a complaint and dismiss the same with cost which we assess at Rs. 10,000/- to be shared equally by the Bank and other respondents. Complaint dismissed with cost.