WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950

The petitioner above named humbly begs to submit as follows:

The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-furnishing of the documents as sought by the
petitioner vide its RTI application dtd 20.07.2021 before respondent No. 3, vide its RTI
application dtd 19.08.2021 before respondent No. 4, vide its RTI application did 19.08.2021
before respondent No. 5 and preferred first appeal before respondent No. 6. The said
respondent No. 6 vide its order dtd 16.11.2021 observed that, respondent 5 has not replied
to the query in accordance with RTI act and directed the respondent No. 5 to relook in to the
RTI application and provide suitable reply in terms of RTI act 2005 within 15 days from the
date of receipt of this order, with respect to data sought by the petitioner for September
2011, September 2012, September 2013 and September 2014. However the respondent
No. 5 not obliged to furnish the documents to the petitioner as per the orders of the
respondent No. 6 till this date. The respondent No. 5 supposed to furnish the documents
within 15 days but even after lapse of 5 weeks respondent No. 5 has not obliged to furnish
the documents to the petitioner as per the orders of respondent No. 6. Aggrieved by the
same the petitioner filed a second appeal before Respondent No. 7 vide its second appeal
dtd 23.11.2021 with a prayer to allow the application dtd 19.08.2021 filed before Respondent
No. 5 with a direction to furnish the documents sought by the petitioner in its RTI application
dtd 19.08.2021. But even after a lapse of 1 year the respondent No. 7 has not disposed of
the appeal. Therefore being aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed before
this Hon'ble court by this petitioner against the respondents.

BREIF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. It is respectfully submitted that a company by name M/s Bharath Infra Exports and imports
Ltd. was established on 17.07.2007 with an objective to provide a platform to meet the
requirements of the construction industry and developed a shopping mall in the name and
style as "Landmark" to trade A-Z construction materials and interiors under one roof which is
an unique project/business model in India.

2. It is submitted that, the building and infrastructure of the said "Landmark" mall was set up
by the promoters with own investment without any borrowings from any banks or private
financiers with a paid up capital of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crores Only).

3. It is submitted that, subsequently looking into the financial strength, assets and track
record of the company, the SBI bank sanctioned Rs. 50 Crores of working capital facilities to
our company (CD) on 18.05.2009 and enhanced to Rs. 65 Crores on 22.11.2010 and further
enhanced to Rs. 97.50 Crores on 07.03.2012 further it enhanced to Rs. 157.22 crores on
23.03.2015 out of which Rs. 45 crores was cash credit and Rs. 112.22 crores were letter of
credit (LC limits).

To avail credit facilities from the bank, the company (CD), directors and others mortgaged 10
valuable properties as a collateral securities in favour of the bank. All the 10 mortgaged
properties are non-agriculture properties falling in city/town municipal corporation limits, in
which 7 properties falling in the limits of Bangalore Development Authority and are on the
national highway 7 (Bangalore-Hosur 10 lane main road), adjacent to electronic city and next
to Metro stations. As on today the present market value of the mortgaged properties is
around Rs. 230 crores.

5. It is submitted that, On 22-06-2015 the then AGM namely Ms. Sudha Rathnakar and the
then chief Manager Mr, Kanisetty Prakesh of the SBI illegally transferred Rs. 2.03 crores
from our company's account to SBI life insurance company without any Cheque or consent
of our company (CD) and both of them earned commissions from the SBI life Insurance
company by becoming an agents of SBI Life Insurance policy. When the company came to
know the said illegal debits in the year 2016 it has demanded the Bank (SBI) to refund Rs.
2.03 crores (Rupees Two Crores and Three Lakhs Only) with interest, along with the other
illegal debits. Subsequently the new AGM of the Branch Sri. Ramesh Babu on one hand
wrote a letter to SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd on 05.10.2016 moming for closure of SBI
Life! Insurance policy and to refund the above referred amount to the company, but on the
other hand in collusion with the above said officials issued a letter to the company on the
same day evening i.e., on 05.10.2016 and irrationally increased the LC margin from 10% to
15% and withdrawn Rs.20 crores EPC facilities and also modified the other terms of the said
facilities which is against the RBI guidelines and norms. The copies of the letter dtd
05.10.2016 addressed from the SBI bank city branch Bangalore to the SBI life insurance and
the copy of the letter did 05.10.2016 addressed to the company (BIEIL) by the AGM, SBI
bank city branch Bangalore are produced here for your kind perusal as Annexure- A and B
respectively.

6. It is submitted that, with an intention to avoid conflict and hindrance in the business, the
company requested the Bank on 6.10.2016 to go for golden hand shake and made payment
of Rs. 10,63,00,000/- to the Bank and in order to clear entire credit facilities, vide its letter dt.
07.10.2016 the company requested the Bank to adjust the remaining outstanding amount of
Rs. 8,77,41,619 (Eight crore seventy-seven lakhs forty- one thousand six hundred nineteen
only) out of the FD amount of Rs. 11.19,53,633 (Eleven crore nineteen lakh fifty three
thousand six hundred thirty three only) which the company kept with the bank as LC margin.
It is relevant to note that, the company has kept the FD in the bank for the purpose of LC
margin, if there were any LCs issued prior to 07.10.2016 as alleged by the bank, it could
have replied to the company's letter dtd 07.10.2016 in which the company demanded the
bank to adjust the above referred FD amount, but since the alleged LCs were issued without
the authority of the company, the bank has kept silent without giving any reply till this day.
The copies of the letter dtd 06.10.2016 and 07.10.2016 addressed to the AGM, SBI bank
city branch Bangalore, by the company (BIEIL), the details of the FD amount deposited by
the company (BIEIL) with SBL, city branch and the bank's ledger account of the company
dtd 06.10.2016 are produced here for your kind perusal as Annexure- C, D, E & F
respectively.

7. It is submitted that, subsequent to closure of the loan account with the bank by the
petitioner vide its letter dtd 07.10.2016, the bank has debited some illegal debits in the
account of the petitioner and filed a company petition No. 112/BB/2019 before NCLT
Bangalore on 12.04.2019. The petitioner filed detailed objection on 11.07.2019 before
Hon'ble NCLT and denied the entire alleged claim of the bank in particularly based on the
following facts and the documents.

a. The letter dtd 07.10.2016 addressed to the AGM, SBI bank city branch Bangalore, by this
petitioner which is evident for closure of the credit facilities availed from the SBI bank
(Annexure D).

b. The financial information (form C) submitted by the SBI bank in the portal of National E-
Governance Services Limited (NeSL) dtd 31.05.2019 by virtue of section 215(2) of the IBC
as mandatory requirement which discloses that, the principal and the interest is zero in the
account of the petitioner, but the bank claimed Rs. 93,37.61,348/- (Rupees Ninety Three
crores thirty seven lakhs sixty one thousand three forty eight only) as overdue amount and
Rs. 113.37,61.348/- (Rupees one hundred thirty seven lakhs sixty one thousand three forty
eight only) as total outstanding amount, but the bank has not explained how it has arrived
the said dues when the principal and interest is zero in the account of the petitioner. Hence
the petitioner has disputed the above alleged debt and made a submission in the portal of
National E-Governance Services Limited (NeSL). The copy of the NeSL report dtd
31.05.2019 submitted by the bank in the NESI. portal and the copy of the extract of the
NeSL report discloses the reason for dispute by the petitioner are produced herewith for kind
perusal as Annexure G and H respectively.