You are on page 1of 4

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM

O.S. No. ___/2009

Plaintiff:
A.V.Raveendranatha Kamath
Vs.
Defendant:
The Varthaka Mandal Nidhi Ltd.

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL


PROCEDURE, 1908

Plaintiff:
A.V.Raveendranatha Kamath, aged 73,
S/o. Vasudeva Kamath, House No. 6/1828,
Palace Road, Cochin 682 002.
Vs.
Defendant:
The Varthaka Mandal Nidhi Ltd, a public limited
company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956
with its registered office at XL/6013, T.D.Shopping Complex, T.D.West Road,
Ernakulam, Cochin 682 035, rep. by its
Managing Director, name and fathers name not known.

The defendant respectfully submits as follows


1. The address for services of notice and other processes on the Defendant is as finds mention
in the cause title and also that of the counsel XYZ________.
2. The defendant would like to submit that the present suit is unfounded and not based on any
valid ground of law or fact and as such is liable to be dismissed at the outset.
3. The pleadings in paragraph 1 of the plaint are admitted and not denied.
4. The defendant would like to dispute the averments in Paragraph 2 with respect to the
plaintiff complying with all the norms of the company in disbursing the concerned loan
amount totalling Rs. 2,63, 500/- . It is further submitted that the plaintiff colluded with the
alleged suspect E.S. Raji in accepting spurious gold as security for loan advanced and this
was done 17 times which illustrated the degree of involvement between the plaintiff and
suspect E.S. Raji.
5. The defendant refute the averments made in Paragraph 3 that the various concerned loan
transactions were brought to the notice of the defendant company by the plaintiff and would
like to bring to notice the fact that the fraud was discovered during the course of a routine
inspection of the department activities. The gold was appraised by independent experts who
brought to light the spuriousness of the same and the plaintiff had no role in disclosing the
same to the management of the defendant company.
6. The defendant also denies that the amount of Rs 2,63,500/- was paid by the plaintiff as a
form of security to the defendant company. The defendants wanted to initiate a criminal
investigation against the plaintiff upon discovering the magnitude of the fraud perpetrated by
and on hearing this the plaintiff requested the management of the defendant company that the
same be held off for the time being. The plaintiff further gave his consent with respect to
making good the losses suffered by the company and the payment of the aforementioned
amount was in respect of that and not for purposes of security.
7. The defendant does not deny the pleadings spelt out in Paragraph 5 and 6 except to the
extent that notice of the suspected fraudulent activity was not brought forth by the plaintiff.
8. With respect to the pleading spelt out in Paragraph 7 of the plaint, it is not denied that the
Managing Director of the defendant company issued a memo holding the Plaintiff guilty of
gross misconduct and a show cause was also issued with respect to the grant of loans totalling
Rs. 2, 63, 500/- . The defendant would further like to humbly submit that the plaintiff in his
reply to the show cause notice accepted all the allegations made and did not dispute the
veracity of any of them.
9. The defendant would like to bring to notice the fact of the plaintiff being retained inspite of
strong suspicion of collusion in cheating the company by transferring him from the gold
department to the accounts department. This move was prompted solely on the basis of
humanitarian concerns and a strong loyalty to the employees of the company. The plaintiff on
the other hand continued to perform below expectations and showed gross negligence in the

discharge of his duties which necessitated his dismissal from the company. The averments in
Paragraph 8 of the plaint that the plaintiff was not fired and that he had approached the
management of the defendant company with respect to the payment of the aforementioned
amount of Rs. 2, 63, 500/- is totally denied and are false.
10. The averments in Paragraph 11 of the plaint that the Managing Director of the defendant
company had flatly refused to pay back the money allegedly deposited as security by the
plaintiff are totally false and it would be prudent to further reiterate that the money was paid
by the plaintiff in a bid to cover the losses incurred by the company due to the gross
misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and there was never any consensus ad idem with
respect to the said amount being treated as security. It is also reiterated that the fraud was
discovered due to the efforts of the defendant company in the course of a routine
investigation otherwise the plaintiff would have continued to collude with the suspect in
cheating the company out of significant amount of money.
11. The defendant would further like to humbly submit that the plaintiff has no legal right to
file the present suit as there does not arise any cause of action for initiating the suit. It is
further submitted that the cause of action alleged to be arising on 25.10.2006 and issuance of
legal notice on 16.09. 2009 and subsequent dates as mentioned in the averments in Paragraph
13 of the plaint are totally false and misleading.
WHEREFORE, the defendant prays that, this Honble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the plaint filed by the plaintiff and pass any other relief which this Honble Court may deem
fit in accordance with law in the interest of justice and equity.
Place:
Date:

Advocate for the Defendant

VERIFICATION

I,_________________ of the defendant in the above case do hereby declare that what is
stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, belief and information.

Date:

Defendant

Advocate for the Defendant