Calcutta High Court Seeks Personal Appearance Of HSBC Bank's Senior Officials In London-Based Solicitor's Case Alleging Fraud
The Calcutta High Court recently ordered the personal appearance of HSBC management in a case filed by an Indian-origin Solicitor based in London alleging fraud and siphoning of funds from his account.Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay directed the Registrar Administration (L & OM) to serve administrative notice upon the opposite parties to ensure their personal appearance before the court on...
The Calcutta High Court recently ordered the personal appearance of HSBC management in a case filed by an Indian-origin Solicitor based in London alleging fraud and siphoning of funds from his account.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay directed the Registrar Administration (L & OM) to serve administrative notice upon the opposite parties to ensure their personal appearance before the court on the next date of hearing through the concerned police station. The order was passed on a revision petition filed by Orijit Das.
Das had filed a complaint against the HSBC management (opposite parties) at the Shakespeare Sarani police station in 2013. However, since the police did not take any action on basis of the same over a period of one year, the petitioner filed a complaint against the opposite parties before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Calcutta which was dismissed vide order dated September 10, 2014. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court against the impugned order of the CMM.
In the complaint, Das alleged that the NRI services of HSBC induced him to open a bank account with the Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Calcutta so that he would get attractive benefits from the bank including not having to maintain any minimum balance which would help him transfer funds to his elderly parents.
The petitioner further alleged that blank letter of instructions with a signature of petitioner were wrongfully used by the bank officials by investing and dealing with the loss making funds directly, thereby causing wrongful gain to themselves.
It was also alleged that the respondents forged the signature of the petitioner to sell the mutual funds held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and those funds were later siphoned off into the own account of respondents through a fraudulent home loan arrangement.
“The opposite parties resorted to siphoning of funds from the NRO account of the petitioner contrary to the instructions of the petitioner. Huge amounts of money were removed from the bank account of the petitioner without his consent and when he asked for Bank Statement they refused/failed to provide any explanation for the same to the petitioner,” according to the plea.
The petitioner also alleged that he was induced to pay periodical payments as premiums of insurance policies which were lapsed and the amount paid by the petitioner for extension from time to time were siphoned.
“The Ld. Magistrate completely misdirected himself by dismissing the petition of complaint and throttling a legitimate prosecution at its threshold without considering the extensive amount of evidence provided according an opportunity to produce the evidence in support of the claims and contentions of the petitioner,” the petitioner said.
The court directed the personal appearance of the HSBC management on the next date and further called for a report from the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta with regard to the status of the complaint case filed by him.
The matter is listed next on April 17.
Case Title: Orijit Das v. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBC)