Madras High Court
Tata Steel Limited vs K.E. Srinivasan Iyer on 27 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22.03.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.S. No. 223 of 2007
Tata Steel Limited
Rep. by its authorized signatory
Johnson Joseph
No.191, Hamid Tower,
III Floor, Whites Road,
Chennai. ....Plaintiff
Vs
K.E. Srinivasan Iyer ....Defendant
Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read
with Order VII Rule 1 CPC praying to pass a Judgment and decree:
(i) For directing the defendant to pay sum of Rs.1,14,82,501/- (One
Crore Fourteen Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Five Hundred and One only)
along with 24% interest from the date of this suit till date of realization;
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) For the cost of the suit and,
(iii) To pass such further or other orders.
For Plaintiff : Mr. K. Pradeep
(For Mr. M.Sridhar)
For Defendant : Mr. P.R. Murali
******
JUDGMENT
This Civil Suit is filed for the relief as stated in the
prayer.
2. The case of the Plaintiff, as set out, in the plaint is as
follows:-
a.The Plaintiff is one of the leading and pioneer manufacturers
of Iron Steel and Steel products. The Plaintiff is having their factory at
Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand and its Registered Office at Mumbai
and different branch offices at different places throughout the Country. The
Plaintiff has several divisions and two of such divisions are the Wire
Division and Steel Division.
b.The Defendant had joined the service of the Plaintiff pursuant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to a letter of appointment dated January 31st 1981 on the terms and
conditions detailed in the said letter of appointment, which were
subsequently amended by another letter dated July 1st 1989. Since April
2003 till June 16th 2006, the Defendant was working in the post of Manager
Accounts South, posted at the Wire Division of the Plaintiff situated at 191.
Hamid Building, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600006 and on or about June 2006
the Defendant was transferred to the Steel Division of the Plaintiff situated
in Chennai at Eldarado Building, 112 Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai.
In addition to the Defendant, there was only one officer and three staffs at
the said Wire Division of the Plaintiff at Chennai. The other officer at the
Wire Division was responsible for marketing of the products while the
Defendant was responsible mainly for finance and accounts in the said
division. While transferred in Steel Division, the Defendant was also
instructed to continue with his existing responsibilities towards the Wire
Division.
c.The functions of the said office of Wire Division of the
Plaintiff in Chennai were, inter-alia, to sell, distribute, market different Wire
products manufactured by the Plaintiff, to receive and collect payments in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respect thereof from the customers, dealers and distributors of the Plaintiff.
As per prevailing system, all the moneys so collected needs to be handed
over to the Cash Management System, Citi Bank. The moneys so collected
can also be deposited to the designated Current Account being No. 5250
with UCO Bank, Mount Road Branch. All the collections routed through
Letter of Credits, Hundi transactions are also deposited in this account. All
such moneys so deposited in the said account No. 5250 with UCO bank, are
periodically transferred to the Head Office of the plaintiff at Mumbai.
Periodical copies of accounts statements collected from the bank were to be
sent by the said Wire Division Chennai to the Wire Division office of the
Plaintiff situated at Mumbai.
d. The Defendant was in overall charge and supervision of the
functions of the said Wire Division The other employees in the said Wire
Division were required to act under the instructions and at the instance of the
Defendant. The Defendant was an authorised signatory to the Current
Account No.CA 5250 as well as account No: 5241 with Uco Bank, Mount
Road Branch, Chennai. During December 2006, the management of the
Plaintiff Company found some discrepancies in the statement of Accounts in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the wire division at Chennai and immediately, initiated internal investigation
of accounts for the last one year. To the shock of the Plaintiff, it was found
that the Defendant had misappropriated the Company's funds to the tune of
Rs.61,85,000.00 by way of 'self withdrawals” and by way of fictitious
payments made to some third parties to whom the Plaintiff have no dues to
pay. The details of the 'self' cheques and the payments details made to third
parties are set out below.
Details of unauthorized withdrawal by
Defendant through 'self' Cheque
S.No. Cheque No. Withdrawal Date Amount (Rs.)
1. 616984 29.04.2006 25,000/-
2. 626914 09.06.2006 10,000/-
3. 626913 09.06.2006 1,00,000/-
4. 626915 28.06.2006 50,000/-
5. 626965 12.07.2006 1,00,000/-
6. 626968 21.07.2006 2,50,000/-
7. 626969 22.07.2006 7,00,000/-
8. 626970 31.07.2006 3,70,000/-
9. 626972 05.08.2006 1,25,000/-
10. 626916 09.08.2006 3,00,000/-
11. 287705 26.08.2006 1,30,000/-
12. 287706 02.09.2006 1,00,000/-
13. 287708 22.09.2006 30,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No. Cheque No. Withdrawal Date Amount (Rs.)
14. 287709 23.09.2006 1,50,000/-
15. 287728 29.09.2006 2,50,000/-
16. 287730 07.10.2006 5,00,000/-
17. 287731 17.10.2006 5,20,000/-
18. 287732 11.11.2006 35,000/-
19. 287752 18.11.2006 10,000/-
Total 37,55,000/-
Details of fictitious payments made by the Defendant
Cheque No. Withdrawal Date Issued to Amount (Rs.)
626909 24.05.2006 S. Yoganathan 30,000/-
287721 05.09.2006 Amman Arul Transport 5,00,000/-
287720 05.09.2006 Amman Arul Transport 5,00,000/-
287735 17.10.2006 Amman Arul Transport 1,00,000/-
287735 17.10.2006 Om Saravana Bhava 1,00,000/-
287737 06.11.2006 Protech Structure Pvt. Ltd. 8,00,000/-
287748 13.12.2006 Protech Structure Pvt. Ltd. 4,00,000/-
Total 24,30,000/-
e. Based on these findings, the Plaintiff issued a show Cause
notice dated January 9th 2007 to the Defendant, mentioning the total number
of cheques and the dates of unauthorized withdrawals during the period
April 2006 till January 2007. The Defendant in reply to the said notice to
show cause, by his letter dated January 18th 2007, agreed to the charges
made and admitted his dishonesty and liability and promised to repay the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
entire amount of Rs. 61,80,000 to the Plaintiff. Pursuant to such admission
by the Defendant, the Defendant from time to time paid a total amount of
Rs. 61,80,000 to the Plaintiff by way of following cheques / bank
drafts:Details of the Cheque/Draft repaid by the Defendant
Cheque/DD No. Date Drawn On Amount (Rs.)
555914 06.01.2007 South Indian Bank 6,00,000/-
555915 06.01.2007 South Indian Bank 7,00,000/-
555916 06.01.2007 South Indian Bank 7,00,000/-
338908 12.01.2007 South Indian Bank 8,00,000/-
338909 12.01.2007 South Indian Bank 8,00,000/-
338910 12.01.2007 South Indian Bank 9,00,000/-
910315 18.01.2007 IDBI Bank 3,00,000/-
910324 19.01.2007 IDBI Bank 5,00,000/-
002181 23.01.2007 UTI Bank 2,00,000/-
161303 20.01.2007 Adhiyaman Gr. Bank 3,00,000/-
346301 25.01.2007 UTI Bank 1,00,000/-
068954 25.01.2007 Union Bannk of India 2,00,000/-
Total 61,80,000/-
f. The Plaintiff was really surprised by the way the Defendant
handled this situation and his means to repay the admitted amount within a
short period. This alarmed the Plaintiff to cause further investigation for the
earlier periods. In the meanwhile, the Defendant has been kept in suspension
from his work by order dated 23rd January 2007. On further investigation it
came to light that the Defendant was in practice of misappropriating the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Company's money by way of 'self withdrawals and in the guise of making
some fictitious payments. The total amount of misappropriation is found to
be around Rs.1,76,62,501.13. (Rs. One Crore seventy six lakhs sixty two
thousand five hundred and one and paise thirteen only). The details of the
amount misappropriated by the Defendant are set out below.
Name of Party Unauthorized payment (Rs.)
Self 1,16,54,938/-
M/s. Amman Arul transporter 31,21,127.13/-
Pondichery Institute of Medical Sciences 54,150/-
New Delhi-Riclin Travels 20,160/-
KES 35,000/-
Metro Power Trains 16,017/-
Om Saravana Bhava 5,00,000/-
Quilon - G Binu 70,000/-
Quantam Tlesvs 13,100/-
Sai Venkatalakshmi Lorry Service 67,542/-
Protech Structures 12,00,000/-
R.Ashok Gour 35,000/-
Ranga Hardware 1,01,150/-
RP Abacus 63,500/-
Others 7,10,817/-
Total 1,76,62,501.13/-
g. Thus, the Defendant had wrongfully, illegally and complete breach of
trust withdrawn diverse amounts belonging to the plaintiff and fraudulently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
misappropriated the same for his own purpose, thereby made unlawful and
unjust enrichment. Hence, on February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff issued another
notice to show cause to the Defendant giving full details of the further
revelation of the fraud asking to submit his explanation. In reply to the said
notice dated February 2nd 2007 the Defendant in his writing dated February
2nd 2007 has not denied the charges but has purportedly taken a stand that
he has not misappropriated the entire amount of Rs. 1,76,62,501.13 as
mentioned in the said notice. The Plaintiff further investigated the matter
through its vigilance department. The vigilance committee had held an
investigation at Chennai in the first week of January 2007 and recorded the
statements of the Defendant. The Defendant categorically admitted his entire
fraudulent activities and his liability towards the Plaintiff and promised to
repay the amount so far found due. The Defendant also admitted and
promised to refund any further defalcation if it is found in addition to the
aforesaid amount.
h.Further, to cover up the unauthorized encashment of cheques
and misappropriation of funds from the Plaintiff Company, the Defendant
fabricated the periodical statements and forwarded to the Plaintiff Company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Mumbai for audit purposes. The Defendant had gone to the extent of
preparing his own bank statement, which resembles the original statement of
the bank. Even the stationary used by the defendant is very similar to that of
the original. The Defendant had fraudulently withdrawn monies from the
Plaintiff's account to the tune of 1,16,54,938.00 by encashing 94 'self'
cheques from time to time. The Defendant has not accounted for such
withdrawal in the periodical statement of accounts sent to the office of the
Plaintiff at Mumbai. The Defendant has also made unauthorized payments
and/or caused unauthorized payments to be made from the said Current
account No. CA 5241, to diverse persons including fictitious persons, to
whom payments were not due and were not related to any expenditure
incurred by the Plaintiff. The Defendant had received, realised and collected
diverse amounts in cash from the said persons in exchange of the
unauthorized payments so made, and fraudulently misappropriated the same
and has not accounted for such receipt in cash in the periodical statement of
accounts. The Defendant further tampered with, manufactured, forged and
fabricated the internal accounting system of the said Wire Division of the
Plaintiff. The Defendant committed fraud and dishonesty on the Plaintiff for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
his own purpose, use and benefit and thereby the Plaintiff has suffered a
financial loss totaling to Rupees 1,76,62,501.13. (Rs. One Crore seventy six
lakhs sixty two thousand fivehundred and one and paise thirteen only.) After
giving credit of the total amount of Rs. 61,80,000/- (Rupees Sixty One lakhs
eighty thousand only )repaid by the Defendant, an amount of Rs.
1,14,82,501/- (Rs. One crore fourteen lakhs eighty two thousand five
hundred and one) only has to be recovered from the Defendant. Hence this
Suit.
2. The case of the Defendant, in a nutshell, as set out in the
written statement, is as follows:-
a.The defendant was working under their Supervisors, control
and directions and reporting to them. All transactions of the Division and
bank accounts were open, transparent and was seen by all the Officers
contemporary through the Computer net work, apart from the Internal Audit,
Statutory Audit etc. Further, it is denied as false that the defendant has
misappropriated company's funds to the tune of Rs.51,85,000/- by way of
'SELF' withdrawals and by way of fictitious payments made to some third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
parties. This defendant has not misappropriated any such amount by way of
'SELF' withdrawal or by way of payment to third parties or otherwise.
b.The letter dated 18.1.2007 was not voluntary letter given by
this defendant to the Plaintiff. The alleged admissions contained therein are
not real admissions voluntarily made by this defendant. This Defendant was
pressurized to admit as if he has committed misappropriation and he was
liable to reimburse the said amount and in order to purchase peace, even
though he was not liable, he had subsequently paid a sum of Rs.61,80,000/-
to the Plaintiff by making heavy borrowings from outside.
c.The re-payments were made by this defendant on account of
pressure, undue influence and coercion and in order to purchase peace. A
sum of Rs.45 lakhs was borrowed by this defendant from one
V.S.Ekambaram. This defendant is not guilty of the misappropriation
alleged to the tune of Rs. 1,76,62,501.13 or any other amount. The
allegations are false, imaginary and untrue.
d.The fraud, dishonesty alleged in the notice dated 2.2.2007 are
are made falsely without proper verification and reconciliation of the
accounts. The payments made in subsequent accounting year for previous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
year balance have erroneously been treated as unauthorized payments
without looking into the carried over balances. The facts and figures
reflected in the said notice are false, incorrect, baseless and untenable. The
cash withdrawals were made only for Company purposes and not personal
use of the defendant.
e.The defendant has not given any statement admitting liability
or the alleged fraud before the Vigilance Committee. This defendant was
compelled and forced to sign certain statements prepared by them, which are
not voluntary statements given by the defendant. This defendant is not even
aware of the contents of the said statement. This defendant has not
committed any fraud or misappropriation. As already submitted, there is no
secrecy in accounts or any authority being misled by the accounts alleged to
have been submitted by this defendant. The accounts of the division are open
at all times and were inspected periodically for internal audit and statutory
audit. That apart, the Bank accounts were also accessible on the net by all
Officers. Hence, the allegations that the defendant has fabricated the
accounts, is stoutly denied as false. This defendant is not responsible for the
alleged financial loss to the tune of Rs. 1,76,62,501.13 nor liable for any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
further payment of Rs.1,14,82,501/- or any further amount. The suit claim is
untenable and unsustainable. Therefore, there is no substance or merit in the
above suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4.On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed in both suits:-
1. Whether the defendant was an authorised signatory to
the Current Account No.CA.5250 as well as Account No.5241
with Uco Bank, Mount Road Branch, Chennai maintained by
the plaintiff?
2. Whether the defendant unauthorisedly withdrew
money from the Current Account No.5250 as well as Account
No.5241 with Uco Bank, Mount Road Branch, Chennai
maintained by the plaintiff by way of self cheques?
3. Whether the defendant made unauthorised payment to
third parties including fictious persons, when no such money
was due to them from the plaintiff?
4. Whether the defendant forged the bank statements
from time to time to cover up his mis-appropriation of money
from the plaintiff?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Whether by repaying an amount of Rs.61,80,000/- to
the plaintiff, the defendant has admitted the mis-appropriation
of funds?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of
Rs.1,14,82,501/- along with 24% interest from the date of the
suit till date of realization from the defendants?
7. To what reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?
5. To substantiate the respective contentions, P.W.1 was
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P31 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs.
D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D2 were marked on the side of the
defendants.
6.Heard both sides and perused the material available on
records.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that at the
outset, the plaintiff company came to know that the Defendant had
misappropriated the Company's funds to the tune of Rs.61,85,000.00 by way
of 'self withdrawals” and fictitious payments made to some third parties to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
whom the Plaintiff have no dues to pay. On enquiry, he admitted the said
misappropriation of funds and refunded the same. Thereafter, on further
investigation, the company came to understand that the total amount of
misappropriation is found to be around Rs.1,76,62,501.13. (Rs. One Crore
seventy six lakhs sixty two thousand five hundred and one and paise thirteen
only).
8. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff that the Defendant fabricated the periodical statements and
forwarded to the Plaintiff Company in Mumbai for audit purposes. The
Defendant had gone to the extent of preparing his own bank statement,
which resembles the original statement of the bank. Even the stationary used
by the defendant is very similar to that of the original. The Defendant had
fraudulently withdrawn monies from the Plaintiff's account to the tune of
1,16,54,938.00 by encashing 94 'self' cheques from time to time by way of
unauthorized encashment of cheques and misappropriation of funds from the
Plaintiff Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff that in reply to the show cause notices issued by the plaintiff and on
the investigation of the vigilance committee, the Defendant categorically
admitted his entire fraudulent activities and his liability towards the Plaintiff
and promised to repay the amount so far found due. Hence, he seeks the
relief as prayed for.
9. The learned counsel for the defendants submits the re-
payments were made by this defendant on account of pressure, undue
influence and coercion and in order to purchase peace by borrowing a sum
of Rs.45 lakhs from one V.S.Ekambaram. The defendant is not guilty of the
misappropriation alleged to the tune of Rs. 1,76,62,501.13 or any other
amount. The allegations are false, imaginary and untrue.
10. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the
defendant that the fraud, dishonesty alleged in the notice dated 2.2.2007 are
are made falsely without proper verification and reconciliation of the
accounts. The cash withdrawals were made only for Company purposes and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not personal use of the defendant. Further, the defendant has not given any
statement admitting liability or the alleged fraud before the Vigilance
Committee. He was compelled and forced to sign certain statements
prepared by them, which are not voluntary statements given by the him. This
defendant is not even aware of the contents of the said statement. This
defendant has not committed any fraud or misappropriation. Hence, the suit
is liable to be dismissed.
Issue No.1 and 2:
11. On a perusal Ex.P5, it is seen that the Plaintiff has
authorized the defendant to access UCO bank being the Manager Accounts
to the Current Account No.5241, UCO Bank, Mount Road Branch,
Chennai maintained by the plaintiff and the misappropriation had happened
in the aforesaid Account by way of Self Cheque transfer in the defendant
name vide Ex.P28 in which the defendant has withdrawn various amount on
various dates by way of Self Cheque and made payment over the Bill
amount. It is also admitted by the defendant in his handwritten letter vide
Ex.P7 to Ex.P9. the Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Issue No.3:
12. On perusal of Ex.P10, it is seen that M/s.Amman Arul
Transport has communicated by way of letter dated 04.01.2007 to the
plaintiff that they have raised the Bill only for the amount of Rs.64,41,342/-
for the period from December 2005 to December 2006. However, the
defendant has paid a sum of Rs.74,82,940/- beyond the bill amount. The
defendant has paid an amount of Rs.10,41,598/- excessively. In this regard,
the defendant has received the excess amount for Rs.10,00,000/- in cash
from M/s.Amman Arul Transport and the defendant has informed to adjust
the balance amount of Rs.41,598/- in the pending bills. It is made clear that
the defendant has made unauthorised payment to third parties including
fictious persons, when no such money was due to them from the plaintiff.
Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No.4:
13. While the UCO Bank Statement in the name of Plaintiff
vide Ex.P28, and Ex.P31 which are original Bank Statement of UCO Bank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is comparing with Ex.P24 to Ex.27 (during the period from May-2003 to
January-2004, February-2004 to January-2005, and May-2005 to October-
2005 respectively) which are seen fabricated one without any authorized
signature and seal of the UCO bank. Further, the defendant has not
whispered anything about the UCO Bank statement regarding Ex.P24 to
Ex.P28, and Ex.P31. It shows that untrustworthy nature of the defendant.
Hence, it is made clear that the defendant forged the bank statements from
time to time to cover up his mis-appropriation of money from the plaintiff.
Accordingly, Issue No.4 is anwered in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.
Issue No.5:
14.On perusal of the records Vide Ex.P13 to Ex.P19, it is seen
that the defendant has repaid the amount of Rs.61,80,000/- by way of
various Cheques and Demand Draft on various dates in partial payment
after admitting the misappropriation of transaction made by him in the
company by virtue of in his own handwritten letter to the Plaintiff vide
Ex.P7 to Ex.P9. Further, even though the defendant has given letter dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
02.02.2007, vide Ex.P21, stating that the considerable amount has been used
for the company purpose, he has not proved the same by way of oral and
documentary evidence which are used for the company purpose. Even if it is
stated that he was compelled and forced to sign certain statements prepared
by them, he has not made any complaint in this regard before the higher
authorities of the Company and also not lodged any complaint to Police. In
Ex.P23, the defendant has stated as follows:
"I fully agree my misconduct and dishonesty to my
company and now deeply regretting for that, whatever
punishment company decides will be the final"
and he also further stated as follows:
"The only thing I can promise, whether continue in Tata Steel
or not I will try to repay the committed amount and balance to
my company even though I have not utilized the fund, but now I
am not in a position to confirm the time"
Considering the aforesaid admitted statement of the defendant, Issue
No.5 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Issue No.6 and 7:
15. On perusal of Ex.P29, a statement showing the amount of
Rs.1,14,82,501/- to be recovered by the plaintiff from the defendant and also
considering issue Nos. 1 to 5 are in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is
entitled for a sum of Rs.1,14,82,501/- along with interest @12% p.a. from
the date of the suit till date of realization from the defendants. Accordingly,
Issue No.6 and 7 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
16. In the result, the suit is decreed. No costs.
27.09.2024
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
Lbm
Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff and defendant:-
P.W.1. - Mr. Johnson Joseph
D.W.1. - K.E. Srinivasa Iyer
Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No. Exhibits Description of Documents Date
1. EX.P1 Original letter of authorization and power of attorney. 13.03.2007
2. EX.P2 Copy of appointment order. 31.01.1981
3. EX.P3 Copy of the service record of the defendant.
4. EX.P4 Copy of the amended terms of employment of the 01.07.1989
defendant.
5. EX.P5 Copy of the operating instructions given to UCO bank. 19.10.2005
6. EX.P6 Copy of the letter by the defendant enclosing his property 20.12.2006
details.
7. EX.P7 Original letter from the defendant admitting 03.01.2007
Misappropriation along with Cheque.
8. EX.P8 Original letter by the defendant admitting Misappropriation 04.01.2007
along with Cheque.
9. EX.P9 Original letter by the defendant admitting Misappropriation 06.01.2007
along with Cheque.
10. EX.P10 Original letter from M/s. Ammal Arul Transport of 04.01.2007
Plaintiff.
11. EX.P11 Copy of the show cause notice by the plaintiff to the 09.01.2007
defendant.
12. EX.P12 Copy of the show cause notice by the defendant to the 18.01.2007
plaintiff.
13. EX.P13 Original covering letter by defendant for part payment 12.01.2007
along with copy of Cheques.
14. EX.P14 Original covering letter by defendant for part payment 18.01.2007
along with copy of Cheques.
15. EX.P15 Original covering letter by defendant for part payment 19.01.2007
along with copy of Cheques.
16. EX.P16 Copy of the letter of suspension issued by the plaintiff to 23.01.2007
the defendant duly acknowledgment by defendant.
17. EX.P17 Original covering letter by defendant for part payment 12.01.2007
along with copy of Cheques.
18. EX.P18 Original covering letter by defendant for part payment 25.01.2007
along with copy of Cheques.
19. EX.P19 Original covering letter by defendant for part payment 27.01.2007
along with copy of pay order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No. Exhibits Description of Documents Date
20. EX.P20 Original 2nd show cause notice issued by the plaintiff to 02.02.2007
the defendant.
21. EX.P21 Original reply to the show Cause notice by the defendant. 02.02.2007
22. EX.P22 Original letter from plaintiff to the defendant. 09.03.2007
23. EX.P23 Original reply letter by the defendant to the plaintiff. 13.03.2007
24. EX.P24 Original forged bank statement forward by the defendant to
the plaintiff for May, 2003 to January, 2004.
25. EX.P25 Original forged bank statement forward by the defendant to
the plaintiff for February, 2004 to January, 2005.
26. EX.P26 Photocopy of the forged bank statement forward by the
defendant to the plaintiff for May, 2005 to October, 2005.
27. EX.P27 Photocopy of the forged bank statement forward by the 04.01.2007
defendant to the plaintiff.
28. EX.P28 Original bank statement attested by UCO bank for the
period April, 2003 to December, 2006.
29. EX.P29 Statement showing the amount to be recovered by plaintiff
from defendant.
30. EX.P30 Certificate of encumbrance. 12.02.2007
31. EX.P31 (series) bank statement for the period from 01.04.2001 to
31.03.2003. (marked through DW1 cross)
32. EX.D1 Annual report of Tata Steel Limited for the year 2006-
2007.
33. EX.D2 Annual report of Tata Steel Limited for the year 2007-
2008.
27.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J,
Lbm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
27.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
