IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 and CM APPL. Nos. 2770/2012, 7012/2012, 7175- 76/2012, 8677/2012, 8856/2012, 18642/2012, 19370/2012, 19501/2012, 19683/2012, 19820/2012, 105/2013, 326/2013, 428/2013, 522/2013, 1223/2013, 1679/2013, 2477/2013, 3380/2013, 3855/2013, 10492-93/2013
SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. N. Ganpathy and Mr. Manpreet Lamba, Advocates for respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7
Mr. A.K. Singh, proxy counsel for Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate for CVC/R-2
Mr. P.K. Singh, Advocate for
Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocate for R-4
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for Delhi Police with Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocate
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for UOI
Mr. A.K. Singh and Mr. Bakul Jain, Advocates for Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing counsel for CBI
Mr. P.V. Saravana Raja and Mr. Abhilashattri, proxy counsels for
Mr. C. Mukuns and Mr. Firdouse Qutbwani, Advocates for R-13
Ms. Archna, Advocate for R-16
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
O R D E R
10.01.2014
Today, at the outset, the petitioner made a submission for adjourning the matter as she has made a request to the Chief Justice of India as well as to the Chief Justice of this Court for transfer of this writ petition to the Hon?ble Supreme Court for hearing. We, however, rejected the request for adjournment. So the petitioner has made further submissions in the matter. Due to paucity of time matter is adjourned to 24th January, 2014 for further submission.
Today Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned counsel for the Delhi Police submitted that on an independent assessment of the situation the police has come to the conclusion that there is no immediate threat perception to the petitioner as she has been projecting every now and then and therefore, now it should be left to the discretion of the police authorities as to whether any protection is to be provided to her or not depending upon the inputs which the police may get. The petitioner strongly refutes this submission. Considering all the facts and circumstances we are not inclined to withdraw our earlier orders directing the police to extend full protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner till further orders of this Court.
P.K. BHASIN, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JANUARY 10, 2014/pg
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: New application dated 21 November 2014 filed seeking orders on illegal impersonation of General Electric in Court by Radhakrishnan - Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower - WP Civil 1280 of 2012, a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)
To: pmosb <pmosb@gov.in>, Amit Shah <amitshah.bjp@gmail.com>, sanjayjain.chamber@gmail.com, "director@aiims.ac.in" <director@aiims.ac.in>, lggc.delhi@nic.in, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, Bhim Sain Bassi <cp.bsbassi@nic.in>, joe.kaeser@siemens.com, dch@nic.in, "splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in" <splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <splcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-cr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ser-dl@nic.in, jtcp-swr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ga-dl@nic.in, "jtcpt_dtp@nic.in" <jtcpt_dtp@nic.in>, "jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sec-dl@nic.in, "jcpsec@rb.nic.in" <jcpsec@rb.nic.in>, "addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sb-dl@nic.in, addlcp-crime-dl@nic.in, "addlcpt-dtp@nic.in" <addlcpt-dtp@nic.in>, "addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in>, dcp-west-dl@nic.in, addlcp-se-dl@nic.in, "dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <dcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, dcp-eow-dl@nic.in, dcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, dcp-east-dl@nic.in, dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in, "dcp-central-dl@nic.in" <dcp-central-dl@nic.in>, dcp-north-dl@nic.in, dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in, "dcp-south-dl@nic.in" <dcp-south-dl@nic.in>, dcp-outer-dl@nic.in, "dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in" <dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in" <dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in>, dcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, "addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in" <addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in>, "acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-hndin-dl@nic.in" <sho-hndin-dl@nic.in>, "Madder, Emily" <emily.madder@siemens.com>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.com>, "cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com" <cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com>, rajshekhar rao <rao.rajshekhar@gmail.com>, "vikram@duaassociates.com" <vikram@duaassociates.com>, "sec-jus@gov.in" <sec-jus@gov.in>, "pk.malhotra@nic.in" <pk.malhotra@nic.in>, "ramakrishnan.r@nic.in" <ramakrishnan.r@nic.in>, "jmg.vc@nic.in" <jmg.vc@nic.in>, "cvc@nic.in" <cvc@nic.in>, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, "hshso@nic.in" <hshso@nic.in>, "complaintcell-ncw@nic.in" <complaintcell-ncw@nic.in>, "sgnhrc@nic.in" <sgnhrc@nic.in>, "dg-nhrc@nic.in" <dg-nhrc@nic.in>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov" <usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov>, "nalin.jain@ge.com" <nalin.jain@ge.com>, "helpline@eda.admin.ch" <helpline@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Vertretung-New-Delhi <ndh.vertretung@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-VISA New-Delhi <ndh.visa@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Etat Civil New Delhi <ndh.etatcivil@eda.admin.ch>, "vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "emb@rusembassy.in" <emb@rusembassy.in>, indconru indconru <indconru@gmail.com>, "web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk" <LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk>, "delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu" <delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu>, "re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca" <re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca>, "info@new-delhi.diplo.de" <info@new-delhi.diplo.de>, Ambassaden New Delhi <ambassaden.new-delhi@foreign.ministry.se>, "delamb@um.dk" <delamb@um.dk>, "emb.newdelhi@mfa.no" <emb.newdelhi@mfa.no>, "chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "InfoDesk@ohchr.org" <InfoDesk@ohchr.org>, "Press-Info@ohchr.org" <Press-Info@ohchr.org>, "civilsociety@ohchr.org" <civilsociety@ohchr.org>, "nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org" <nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org>, "webmaster@ambafrance-in.org" <webmaster@ambafrance-in.org>, "info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org" <info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org>, "VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "indne@unhcr.org" <indne@unhcr.org>, "ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it" <ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it>, "chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn>, "chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "webmaster@mfa.gov.cn" <webmaster@mfa.gov.cn>, "in@mofcom.gov.cn" <in@mofcom.gov.cn>, "sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com" <sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com>, "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, "mr@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mr@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "crb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <crb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "me@rb.railnet.gov.in" <me@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "mm@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mm@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ms@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ms@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in" <legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "r_s_chidambaram@cat.com" <r_s_chidambaram@cat.com>, "rathin.basu@alstom.com" <rathin.basu@alstom.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, Nanju Ganpathy <nanju.ganpathy@azbpartners.com>, "bradford.berenson@ge.com" <bradford.berenson@ge.com>, "brackett.denniston@ge.com" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "john.flannery@ge.com" <john.flannery@ge.com>, "delhihighcourt@nic.in" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov" <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "CHAIRMANOFFICE@SEC.GOV" <CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "radhakrishnan.k@ge.com" <radhakrishnan.k@ge.com>, "preet.bharara@usdoj.gov" <preet.bharara@usdoj.gov>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "ffetf@usdoj.gov" <ffetf@usdoj.gov>, "fja@federaljudgesassoc.org" <fja@federaljudgesassoc.org>, "supremecourt@nic.in" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com" <ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com>, Directors@corporate.ge.com, Siemens Ombudsman COM <mail@siemens-ombudsman.com>, compliance.office@bombardier.com, pierre.beaudoin@bombardier.com, william.ainsworth@caterpillar.com, CATshareservices@cat.com, BusinessPractices@cat.com, patrick.kron@alstom.com, keith.carr@alstom.com, Jean-David.barnea@usdoj.gov, reed.brodsky@usdoj.gov, andrew.michaelson@usdoj.gov, ellen.davis@usdoj.gov, eric.glover@usdoj.gov, paul.murphy@usdoj.gov, sandra.glover@usdoj.gov, robert.spector@usdoj.gov, christopher.connolly@usdoj.gov, joseph.cordaro@usdoj.gov, christopher.harwood@usdoj.gov, michael.byars@usdoj.gov, joseph.hogsett@usdoj.gov, stephanie.rose@usdoj.gov, kerry.harvey@usdoj.gov, david.hale@usdoj.gov, stephanie.finley@usdoj.gov, rod.rosenstein@usdoj.gov, carmen.ortiz@usdoj.gov, barbara.mcquade@usdoj.gov, b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, william.martin@usdoj.gov, richard.callahan@usdoj.gov, beth.phillips@usdoj.gov, michael.cotter@usdoj.gov, deborah.gilg@usdoj.gov, daniel.bogden@usdoj.gov, john.kacavas@usdoj.gov, paul.fishman@usdoj.gov, kenneth.gonzales@usdoj.gov, loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov, richard.hartunian@usdoj.gov, william.hochul@usdoj.gov, john.stone@usdoj.gov, anne.tompkins@usdoj.gov, tim.purdon@usdoj.gov, steve.dettelbach@usdoj.gov, carter.stewart@usdoj.gov, sandy.coats@usdoj.gov, zane.memeger@usdoj.gov, peter.smith@usdoj.gov, david.hickton@usdoj.gov, peter.neronha@usdoj.gov, bill.nettles@usdoj.gov, william.killian@usdoj.gov, jerry.martin@usdoj.gov, edward.stanton@usdoj.gov, jose.moreno@usdoj.gov, carlie.christensen@usdoj.gov, tristram.coffin@usdoj.gov, ronald.sharpe@usdoj.gov, neil.macbride@usdoj.gov, timothy.heaphy@usdoj.gov, bill.ihlenfeld@usdoj.gov, booth.goodwin@usdoj.gov, james.santelle@usdoj.gov, john.vaudreuil@usdoj.gov, christopher.crofts@usdoj.gov, bprao@bhel.in, ajay.sinha@emdiesels.com, armin.bruck@siemens.com, sunil.mathur@siemens.com, benoit.martel@bombardier.com, roland.busch@siemens.com, michael.suess@siemens.com, klaus.helmrich@siemens.com, daniel.desjardins@bombardier.com, james.buda@caterpillar.com, glen.lehman@progressrail.com, alert.procedure@alstom.com, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, public.enquiries@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, luis.quesada@ic.fbi.gov, steven.kessler@ic.fbi.gov, henry.gittleman@ic.fbi.gov, renn.cannon@ic.fbi.gov, eric.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, jeff.bedford@ic.fbi.gov, david.brooks@ic.fbi.gov, robert.clifford@ic.fbi.gov, mary.warren@ic.fbi.gov, frank.teixeira@ic.fbi.gov, timothy.langan@ic.fbi.gov, sharon.kuo@ic.fbi.gov, kingman.wong@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.bodony@ic.fbi.gov, christopher.mcmurray@ic.fbi.gov, ralph.hope@ic.fbi.gov, eric.metz@ic.fbi.gov, alejandro.barbeito@ic.fbi.gov, cary.gleicher@ic.fbi.gov, paul.haertel@ic.fbi.gov, greg.cox@ic.fbi.gov, lazaro.andino@ic.fbi.gov, gabriel.ramirez@ic.fbi.gov, tom.sobocinski@ic.fbi.gov, benjamin.walker@ic.fbi.gov, kirk.striebich@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.cox@ic.fbi.gov, katherine.andrews@ic.fbi.gov, carolyn.willson@ic.fbi.gov, mark.nowak@ic.fbi.gov, stuart.wirtz@ic.fbi.gov, lesley.buckler@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.dudzinski@ic.fbi.gov, william.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, connally.brown@ic.fbi.gov, leo.navarette@ic.fbi.gov, lawrence.futa@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.shaffer@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.clegg@ic.fbi.gov, adishaggarwala@yahoo.com, adishaggarwala@hotmail.com, vsondhi@luthra.com, muraritiwari.adv@gmail.com, Priyanka Tyagi <adv.priyankatyagi@gmail.com>, sarlakaushik@yahoo.com, goswamiandassociates@yahoo.co.in, vedbaldev@rediffmail.com, rakeshtikuadvocate@yahoo.com, kkmanan <kkmanan@rediffmail.com>, ars.chauhan.co@gmail.com, Rajiv Khosla <advrajivkhosla@gmail.com>, rakeshkochar@hotmail.com, khatri.surya@hotmail.com, puneet mittal <puneetmittal9@gmail.com>, "advamit.sharma@gmail.com" <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, Attorneynitin@yahoo.com, Rajesh Mishra <attorney.rmishra@gmail.com>, jaibirnagar@gmail.com, csrhw@csrhw.com.cn, cnriec@chinacnr.com, deepak verma <justicedverma@gmail.com>, dridzu@nic.in, Om Prakash <oplawassociates@gmail.com>, Jatan Singh <jatan_singh@yahoo.com>, Abhijat Bal <abhijat.bal@gmail.com>, asutosh lohia <lasutosh@gmail.com>, Vikram Singh Panwar <vikrampanwar2010@gmail.com>, ashok.bhasin@yahoo.co.in, Aruna Tiku <arunatikuadvocate@yahoo.com>, Sunil Mittal <sunilmittaladvocate@gmail.com>, Meghna Sankhla <meghna@sankhla.in>, Amit Sharma with khosla <advocateas@gmail.com>, Pankaj Kapoor <lawyerpankaj@gmail.com>, "P.H. Parekh" <pravin.parekh@pravinparekh.com>, rakesh.sherawat@yahoo.com, jagdev_advocate@yahoo.com, abhay kumar verma <akvadvocates@gmail.com>, Manan Mishra <manankumarmishra@gmail.com>, ZAFAR AHMED Khan <zakhan52@gmail.com>, anirveda_04@sifymail.com, prabakaran.president.tnaa@gmail.com, vbhatt.adv@gmail.com, faisalrizvi@hotmail.com, advajithts@gmail.com, n_ramchanderrao@yahoo.com, Nilesh Kumar <agrnilesh73@gmail.com>, kunals777@yahoo.com, chairman@ses-surat.org, bhojcthakur@yahoo.com, raj mohan singh tanwar <rmsinghadvocate@gmail.com>, Rohinton Nariman <rohintonnariman@gmail.com>, Satish Abarao Deshmukh <satish.adeshmukh@gmail.com>, info@group30.org, poststelle@sta.berlin.de, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, webmaster.greco@coe.int, info@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@generalbundesanwalt.de, jthuy@eurojust.europa.eu, ejn@eurojust.europa.eu, collegesecretariat@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@bgh.bund.de, secretariat@cepol.europa.eu, CP@ohchr.org, siemens-ombudsmann@rae13.de, mariassy@rae13.de, usgrievance@rb.nic.in, cenvigil@nic.in, sdas@cbi.gov.in, adrkd@cbi.gov.in, jdp@cbi.gov.in, hozeo@cbi.gov.in, hozmdma@cbi.gov.in, hozbpl@cbi.gov.in, hozmum1@cbi.gov.in, hozkol@cbi.gov.in, hozac@cbi.gov.in, hozstf@cbi.gov.in, hozsc@cbi.gov.in, hozbsf@cbi.gov.in, hozpat@cbi.gov.in, hozeo2@cbi.gov.in, jda@cbi.gov.in, jdtfc@cbi.gov.in, hozdel@cbi.gov.in, hozchn@cbi.gov.in, hozhyd@cbi.gov.in, hozne@cbi.gov.in, dop@cbi.gov.in, hobac1del@cbi.gov.in, hobac2del@cbi.gov.in, hobac3del@cbi.gov.in, rajiv.vc@nic.in, rajeev.verma@nic.in, "cp.ggn@hry.nic.in" <cp.ggn@hry.nic.in>, mukul17855@yahoo.com, Ranjit Kumar <sgofficerk@gmail.com>, lnageshwararao@hotmail.com, tusharmehta64@yahoo.com, neerajkishankaul@gmail.com, Narasimha Pamidighantam <psnarasimha@gmail.com>, naqvimukhtar@yahoo.com, cpthakur1@rediffmail.com, Jual Oram <oram.jual@gmail.com>, jualoram@rediffmail.com, SS Ahluwalia <tengrg@gmail.com>, ssa@10grg.com, Balbir Punj <punjbalbir@gmail.com>, bkpunj@gmail.com, maliksatyapal@hotmail.com, prabhatjhabjp@gmail.com, vijaya_999@ymail.com, laxmi_chawla@yahoo.com, Kiran Maheshwari <saikiran.udr@gmail.com>, ananth@ananth.org, "T. C. Gehlot" <mptcgehlot@gmail.com>, mp.tcgehlot@bjp.org, jpnadda@gmail.com, Dharmendra Pradhan <dpdharmendrapradhan@gmail.com>, d.pradhan@sansad.nic.in, Tapir Gao <gaotapir@yahoo.com>, fvg001@gmail.com, Anand Chaudhary <anandchaudhary2009@gmail.com>, rudypr@rediffmail.com, p.muralidharrao@rediffmail.com, ramji.bjp@gmail.com, Satish Velankar <shrivsatish@gmail.com>, saudan.singh@bjp.org, piyush@bjp.org, jshyam48@rediffmail.com, bhupender_advocate@rediffmail.com, Bhupender Yadav <bhupenderyadav69@gmail.com>, "P.K Krishnadas" <krishnadasbjp@gmail.com>, "Dr. Anil Jain" <aniljain.dr@gmail.com>, vinod.pandey@bjp.org, TRIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT <tsrawatbjp@gmail.com>, Rameshwar Chaurasia <rpcnokha@gmail.com>, arti_9@yahoo.co.in, vani_tripathi@yahoo.com, dr.sudhayadav@yahoo.co.in, Sudha Malaiya <malaiyasudha@gmail.com>, Poonam Mahajan R <pmahajanr@gmail.com>, drtamilisai@yahoo.co.in, lois.bjp@gmail.com, Arun Jain <bjparun.jain@gmail.com>, Arun Jain <arun.jain@bjp.org>, bjpinparliament@yahoo.com, "V. Shanmuganathan" <vsnathan7666@gmail.com>, PRAKASH JAVADEKAR <pjavadekar@gmail.com>, shahnawaz@sansad.nic.in, shahnawaz.hussain@bjp.org, Nirmala Sitharaman <nsitharaman@gmail.com>, "Dr. B S Shastri" <dr.bsshastri@gmail.com>, trivedi.sudhanshu@gmail.com, Meenakshi Lekhi <mrs.mlekhi@gmail.com>, Captain Abhimanyu <abhimanyu.bjp@gmail.com>, mjakbar@hotmail.com, president@bjp.org, ajaitley@sansad.nic.in, sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com, fmo@nic.in, cabinet@nic.in, cabinetsy@nic.in, kk manan <kkmananadvocate@gmail.com>, kkmanan@gmail.com, Usama Siddiqui <musiddiqui@gmail.com>, ranarajinder@ymail.com, jawahar@pralaw.in, secy-mci@nic.in, delhimedicalcouncil@gmail.com, sho-civilline-dl@nic.in, sho-kamlamkt-dl@nic.in, sho-gk-dl@nic.in, sho-chandnimahal-dl@nic.in, sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in, sho-paharganj-dl@nic.in, sho-rkpuram-dl@nic.in, sho-bkroad-dl@nic.in, sho-chanakyapuri-dl@nic.in, sho-vasantvhr-dl@nic.in, sho-vksouth-dl@nic.in, sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in, sho-kmkpur-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in, sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in, sho-malviyangr-dl@nic.in, sho-saket-dl@nic.in, sho-lodhiclny-dl@nic.in, sho-dkuan-dl@nic.in, sho-kalkaji-dl@nic.in, sho-crpark-dl@nic.in, sho-govpuri-dl@nic.in, sho-ipestate-dl@nic.in, sho-mandirmarg-dl@nic.in, sho-kashmirigate-dl@nic.in, sho-rajinderngr-dl@nic.in, sho-karolbagh-dl@nic.in, sho-parsadngr-dl@nic.in, sho-bhrao-dl@nic.in, sho-sadarbazar-dl@nic.in, sho-jamamasjid-dl@nic.in, sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzqazi-dl@nic.in, sho-lahorigate-dl@nic.in, sho-anandparvat-dl@nic.in, sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in, sho-ranjitngr-dl@nic.in, sho-dbgrd-dl@nic.in, sho-sarairohilla-dl@nic.in, sho-punjabibagh-dl@nic.in, gurmeharsistani@gmail.com, Rich Verma <rverma@steptoe.com>, jtcp.ggn@hry.nic.in, "dcphq.ggn@hry.nic.in" <dcphq.ggn@hry.nic.in>, "dcp.southggn@hry.nic.in" <dcp.southggn@hry.nic.in>, Mukul Rohatgi <mukul17855@gmail.com>, seclg@nic.in, Senator@mccain.senate.gov, suresh prabhu <spprabhu1@gmail.com>, majesticinn.sks@gmail.com, sales.majesticinn@gmail.com, majestichotel123@gmail.com
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1280/2012 and CM APPL. Nos. 2770/2012, 7012/2012, 7175- 76/2012, 8677/2012, 8856/2012, 18642/2012, 19370/2012, 19501/2012, 19683/2012, 19820/2012, 105/2013, 326/2013, 428/2013, 522/2013, 1223/2013, 1679/2013, 2477/2013, 3380/2013, 3855/2013, 10492-93/2013
SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. N. Ganpathy and Mr. Manpreet Lamba, Advocates for respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7
Mr. A.K. Singh, proxy counsel for Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate for CVC/R-2
Mr. P.K. Singh, Advocate for
Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocate for R-4
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for Delhi Police with Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocate
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for UOI
Mr. A.K. Singh and Mr. Bakul Jain, Advocates for Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing counsel for CBI
Mr. P.V. Saravana Raja and Mr. Abhilashattri, proxy counsels for
Mr. C. Mukuns and Mr. Firdouse Qutbwani, Advocates for R-13
Ms. Archna, Advocate for R-16
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
O R D E R
10.01.2014
Today, at the outset, the petitioner made a submission for adjourning the matter as she has made a request to the Chief Justice of India as well as to the Chief Justice of this Court for transfer of this writ petition to the Hon?ble Supreme Court for hearing. We, however, rejected the request for adjournment. So the petitioner has made further submissions in the matter. Due to paucity of time matter is adjourned to 24th January, 2014 for further submission.
Today Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned counsel for the Delhi Police submitted that on an independent assessment of the situation the police has come to the conclusion that there is no immediate threat perception to the petitioner as she has been projecting every now and then and therefore, now it should be left to the discretion of the police authorities as to whether any protection is to be provided to her or not depending upon the inputs which the police may get. The petitioner strongly refutes this submission. Considering all the facts and circumstances we are not inclined to withdraw our earlier orders directing the police to extend full protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner till further orders of this Court.
P.K. BHASIN, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JANUARY 10, 2014/pg
All,The attached application has been filed by me today in the Delhi High Court. Annexures P1 to P7 are also attached.A copy of the application is reproduced below. This application will also be listed on the next date of hearing in WP Civil 1280/2012 which is 24 November 2014.Seema SapraIn the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
C.M. Appl. No. of 2014
In
Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra …Petitioner
Versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING DIRECTIONS FROM THE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRAUD ON THE HON'BLE COURT AS ONE K R RADHAKRISHNAN (ASSISTED BY LAWYERS NANJU GANPATHY AND MANPREET LAMBA OF AZB & PARTNERS AND BY DEEPAK ADLAKHA, A LAWYER WHO WAS FIRED BY GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED AFTER THIS WRIT PETITION WAS FILED) IS IMPERSONATING RESPONDENTS 1, 6 & 7 (GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED & GE GLOBAL SOURCING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) BEFORE THIS COURT IN THIS MATTER USING FRAUDULENT, FORGED, FABRICATED AND INVALID AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS AND HAS FILED FALSE, UNAUTHORISED AND PERJURIOUS AFFDAVITS IN THIS MATTER FALSELY HOLDING HIMSELF OUT AS THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY FOR RESPONDENTS 1, 6 AND 7
The Petitioner above named
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. This is an application seeking directions in connection with the fraud on the court as one K Radhakrishan (assisted by lawyers NanjuGanpathy and ManpreetLamba of AZB and by Deepak Adlakha, a lawyer who was fired by General Electric Company after this writ petition was filed) is impersonating respondents 1, 6 and 7 (General Electric Company and two Indian subsidiaries) before the Court using fraudulent and fabricated authority documents. This application is being filed seeking court directions in connection with the unauthorised and fraudulent representation of General Electric Company by K Radhakrishnan and by AZB & Partners before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 – in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others.
2. General Electric Company, an American company is respondent 1 in this petition and was issued notice by the Delhi High Court on 7 March 2012.
3. Mr NanjuGanpathy and AZB & Partners (AZB) appeared for General Electric Company in this matter on 9 May 2012. AZB continued to appear for General Electric Company on 14, 16, 25, 29 and 30 May 2012; on 3,13, and 19 July 2012; on 12 October 2012; on 8, 19, 26 and 30 November 2012; and on 5 December 2012.
4. The petitioner inspected the court record and discovered that AZB/ NanjuGanpathy (along with Rajiv Nayar, Sr Advocate) were appearing for General Electric Company without having filed any vakalatnama. The petitioner filed CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012) objecting to AZB representing General Electric Company without filing a vakalatnama. AZB filed a vakalatnama on 7 December 2012. This application is lying unheard.
5. On 10 December, 2012, CM 19370/ 2012 was listed before court and the petitioner objected in court to AZB's appearance for General Electric Company. On this date, NanjuGanpathy lied to the court and stated that a vakalatnama had been filed much earlier but was not on record. The electronic case history maintained by the court registry establishes that Mr NanjuGanpathy misled the court as there is no record of AZB having filed a vakalatnama before 7 December 2012.
6. Avakalatnama filed by AZB on 7 December 2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and was invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75] which holds that a vakalatnama on behalf of a company must either bear the company seal or it must mention the name and designation of the person signing the vakalatnama (on behalf of the company) below the signature AND a copy of the authority must be annexed to the vakalatnama. The Supreme Court further clarified that if a vakalatnama is executed by a power-of-attorney holder of a party, the failure to disclose that it is being executed by an attorney holder and failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney will render the vakalatnama defective.
7. The petitioner filed CM 19683/2012 on 14 December 2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7 December 2013 was invalid and did not annex the required authority documents. AZB filed another vakalatnama for General Electric Company on 17 December 2012. This vakalatnama is signed by one Mr KRadhakrishnan who is company secretary of an Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company. This Indian subsidiary (GE India Industrial Private Limited) is separately impleaded as respondent 6.
8. K Radhakrishnan claims to be authorised signatory for General Electric Company under a Power of Attorney (POA) dated 4 May 2012 issued in his favour by Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company.
9. K Radhakrishnan has filed an affidavit in the writ petition through AZB on 7 January 2013. This affidavit produces an extract from the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised on November 6, 2009) containing a Board Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the Board Resolution) which describes and limits the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company. A copy of Radhakrishnan's affidavit dated 7 January 2013 is annexed hereto as Annexure P-1.
10. This affidavit also produces the alleged POA dated 4 May 2012 and a statement dated 17 December 2012 made and signed by Mr Brackett Denniston, General Counsel and Secretary of General Electric Company. (This affidavit falsely and perjuriously states in paragraph 2 that this signed statement dated 17 December 2012 issued by Mr Brackett Denniston is a board resolution issued by General Electric Company.)
11. Alexander Dimitrief was Vice President, Litigation & Legal Policy of General Electric Company from 9 February 2007 until November 1, 2011 when he was appointed as General Counsel of GE Energy. On May 4, 2012, the date on which the POA was allegedly executed, Alexander Dimitrief was General Counsel of GE Energy. The writ proceedings pertain to GE Transportation and not to GE Energy. (Both are separate business units/ divisions of General Electric Company).
12. The Board Resolution of General Electric Company describes and limits the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company. The relevant clause is Paragraph A which confers authority to sign powers of attorney and court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company upon certain individuals. Under Paragraph A of the Board Resolution, the following persons are "Authorized Persons" who can sign powers of attorney and court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company:
(i) Chairman of the Board
(ii) A Vice Chairman of the Board
(iii) An Executive Vice President
(iv) A Senior Vice President
(iv) A Vice President reporting directly to the Chairman or a Vice Chairman of the Board
(v) The Comptroller
(vi) The Treasurer
(vii) The Secretary
(ix) Any Vice President who is a corporate staff officer of the Company
13. These "Authorized Persons" can "execute" on behalf of General Electric Company, the instruments of the type described in Paragraph A of the Board Resolution. These instruments described in Paragraph A are the following:
"Any contract, lease, licence, assignment, bond or other obligation, conveyance, power of attorney, guarantee, proxy, court pleading, release, tax return and related documents, or other instruments".
14. The second part of Paragraph A of the Board Resolution also states that the following company employees may "sign" any instrument of the type described in Paragraph A which relates to the component or function or Division or Department to which such company employee is assigned:
(a) An Operational Officer of the Company
(b) A Manager of the Company
(c) A formally designated Acting Manager of the Company
15. Neither the "Authorized Persons" nor any employee of the Company can delegate to "others" the authority to execute/ sign on behalf of General Electric Company, instruments of the type described in Paragraph A of the Board Resolution.
16. Only the Chairman of the Board or a Vice Chairman of the Board is authorized under Paragraph B of the Board Resolution to delegate to "others", the authority to execute contracts and other instruments on behalf of the Company.
17. The last sentence of Paragraph A, and Paragraphs C, D, E, and F provide limited authority on identified individuals to delegate to others the authority to sign on behalf of General Electric Company certain limited types of contracts and instruments. These provisions are not relevant for the POA dated May 4, 2012 as the POA does not fall within the description of the types of instruments covered by these provisions. The POA dated 4 May 2012 is not covered by the last sentence of Paragraph A, or by Paragraphs C, D, E, F and G of the Board Resolution.
18. The provisions of the Board Resolution applicable to the POA dated 4 May 2012 are Paragraph A (excluding its last sentence) and Paragraph B.
19. The POA dated 4 May 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief purportedly does the following:
(a) It purports to delegate to K Radhakrishnan the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company.
(b) It purports to delegate to K Radhakrishnan the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company.
(c) It purports to delegate to K Radhakrishnan the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name of and on behalf of General Electric Company.
(d) It purports to authorize K Radhakrishnan to accept service of summons and notices from a Court on behalf of General Electric Company.
20. Under the original document (the Board Resolution) conferring authority on him, Alexander Dimitrief did not/ does not have the authority to delegate to any person the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name and on behalf of General Electric Company.
21. Therefore Alexander Dimitrief could not have delegated/ can not delegate to K Radhakrishnan (or to any other person) the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name and on behalf of General Electric Company.
22. The POA dated May 4, 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief on behalf of General Electric Company is in excess of the authority vested in Alexander Dimitrief under the Board Resolution and is therefore illegal, unauthorised and invalid and it can confer no authority on K Radhakrishnan.
23. This analysis is also supported by other provisions of the Board Resolution. The last recital on page one of the Board Resolution stipulates that it will not confer "any authority to approve transactions underlying the documents to be signed over and above that which is possessed by the signer either by virtue of the power inherent in that individual's position with the Company or by virtue of a delegation of authority to that individual by the Board of Directors or higher management".
24. Paragraph H of the Board Resolution also confirms that any delegation of authority must be expressly authorized by the Board Resolution and that Authority can be delegated only pursuant to the last sentence of Paragraph (A), or pursuant to Paragraphs (B), (C), (D), (E) or (F) of the board resolution. None of these provisions authorize Alexander Dimitrief to delegate to any person, the authority to execute powers of attorneys and/ or court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company.
25. The petitioner has raised an objection that Alexander Dimitrief was not an Authorized Person in terms of Paragraph A of the Board Resolution on 4 May 2012, and neither was he the Operational Officer of the Company in charge of litigation as he had demitted the office of Vice President, Litigation & Legal Policy of General Electric Company on November 1, 2011.
26. Mr Brackett Denniston's signed statement dated 17 December 2012 annexed to the affidavit of K Radhakrishnan claims that until Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as Mr Alexander Dimitrief's replacement, the latter "continued to be authorized to issue powers of attorney and other instruments on behalf of General Electric Company in relation to matters of litigation and legal policy in terms of the Resolution". No evidence or document has been produced by Mr Brackett Denniston to support this contention. Given that the Board Resolution of General Electric Company limits the authority of individuals to execute instruments on behalf of the company, this authority cannot be expanded suo moto by Mr Brackett Denniston. Mr Alexander Dimitrief was admittedly no longer the Operational Officer looking after litigation for General Electric Company on 4 May 2012 and as such he had no authority to execute the POA dated 4 May 2012.
27. Even assuming without admitting, that Alexander Dimitrief was on 4 May 2012, authorized (as an Operational Officer of the Company looking after litigation & legal policy) under Paragraph A of the Board Resolution to "sign" powers of attorney and/ or court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company in relation to litigation & legal policy; he certainly had no authority to further delegate his authority to others. Alexander Dimitrief could not have delegated the authority to execute/ sign powers of attorney and court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company to K Radhakrishnan. The POA dated 4 May 2012, under which K Radhakrishnan claims to be the authorized signatory and attorney of General Electric Company is unauthorized, illegal and invalid and can confer no such authority upon K Radhakrishnan.
28. K Radhakrishnan is therefore not an authorised signatory of General Electric Company and the vakalatnama executed by him appointing AZB to represent the Company is invalid. Similarly, the several affidavits/ applications executed and filed by K Radhakrishnan through AZB on behalf of General Electric Company in this matter are unauthorised, false and perjurious.
29. Brackett Denniston, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of General Electric Company has in his signed statement dated 17 December 2012 annexed to the affidavit dated 7 January 2013, purported to ratify the execution of the Power of Attorney dated 4 May 2012 on behalf of General Electric Company and in favor of K Radhakrishnan.
30. Brackett Denniston cannot ratify the execution of this POA as he himself could not have executed this POA. Just like Alexander Dimitrief, Brackett Denniston being an "Authorized Person" in terms of Paragraph A of the Board Resolution is only authorized to himself execute on behalf of General Electric Company the instruments of the type described in Paragraph A. The Board Resolution does not authorize Brackett Denniston to further delegate this authority to other persons. Brackett Denniston himself did not/ does not have the authority to execute a POA delegating to K Radhakrishnan the authority to execute powers of attorney and court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company. It follows that Brackett Denniston does not have the authority to ratify an action on behalf of General Electric Company which action he himself is not authorized to undertake.
31. The only persons who are authorized under the Board Resolution to delegate to other persons the authority to execute powers of attorney and court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company are the Chairman and/ or the Vice Chairman of the Board (by virtue of Paragraph B of the Board Resolution).
32. Accordingly, only the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of General Electric Company can ratify the POA dated 4 May 2012. It is also pointed out that mere ratification of the POA dated 4 May 2012 will not suffice. In addition, the Chairman and/ or Vice Chairman of the Board would have to separately verify and ratify each and every affidavit filed in this writ petition by K R Radhakrishnan on behalf of General Electric Company. It is pointed out that all these affidavits are not only unauthorized but are substantively false and the deponent of these affidavits (K Radhakrishnan) is liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offences of perjury, cheating and impersonation.
33. This unauthorized and fraudulent representation of General Electric Company by K Radhakrishnan and by AZB is an elaborate fraud being perpetrated on the Delhi High Court, on General Electric Company, on the Government of India and on the petitioner. This fraud is being perpetrated by senior legal officers of General Electric Company (including Brackett Denniston, Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson and Jeffrey Eglash) acting in collusion with F Joseph Warin and John Chesley from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and with Zia Mody and NanjuGanpathy of AZB & Partners.
34. The complaints that are the subject matter of this petition are against General Electric Company and several of its officers/ executives and in-house lawyers. The alleged in-house investigation into the petitioner's complaints was carried out by General Electric Company through an in-house lawyer, Mr Jeffrey Eglash under the direct supervision of Brackett Denniston and Alexander Dimitrief. The letter dated 3 February 2011 sent to the Petitioner by General Electric Company misrepresenting facts and covering up the complaints of obstruction of justice, corruption, fraud and forgery was signed by Alexander Dimitrief. Brackett Denniston and Alexander Dimitrief are both personally implicated in the petitioner's complaints as are other very high-level officers/ executive/ lawyers / former employees of General Electric Company including Jeffrey Immelt, John Rice, John Flannery, Lorenzo Simonelli, Tara Plimpton, Mona Dange, Deepak Adlakha, Puneet Mahajan, Pratyush Kumar, AshfaqNainar, Scott Bayman, and Ruby Anand.
35. It is pointed out that the POA dated 4 May 2012, omits to mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the nature/ character/ subject matter of the writ petition.
36. The fact of this fraud being committed on the Delhi High Court is further confirmed by a strange provision in the POA dated 4 May 2012. Clause 6 of this POA provides that the powers conferred by the POA "shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise affected by the fact of the Grantor acting either directly or through another agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained".
37. This clause therefore raises the likelihood that the "unauthorized" instructions being sent to K Radhakrishnan and/ or to AZB are not being sent directly from General Electric Company but via other intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple layers of separation between General Electric Company (and its legal officers) and these court proceedings are being maintained.
38. In April 2012, when the petitioner attempted to serve the court notice and the writ petition on General Electric Company at its corporate head-office in Fairfield (Connecticut) in the United States, the courier was diverted by Jeffrey Eglash (a lawyer in General Electric Company) to the New York office of the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. The cover up of the petitioner's complaints is being facilitated by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
39. It appears that no official record of these writ proceedings is available within the internal records of General Electric Company. It appears as if this writ petition has not been officially brought to the notice of senior management of General Electric Company including senior legal officers like Mr Brackett Denniston, Mr Alexander Dimitrief, and Mr Bradford Berenson. This is to prevent any accountability and responsibility on their part for the false affidavits that are being filed in this matter purporting to be on behalf of General Electric Company.
40. AZB has continued to appear for General Electric Company in court in this matter without authority on subsequent dates including on 12, 19, 20 and 21 December 2012; on 7, 14, 16, 23, and 24 January 2013; on 4, 15 and 27 February 2013; on 18 March 2013; on 1, 11, 12, 18, 22 and 29 April, 2013; on 1, 3, 16, 22 and 31 May 2013.
41. Though the petitioner has raised this issue before the court on several dates and in subsequent applications, the Bench has so far failed to even take up this issue for hearing, arguments and decision.
42. The issue is very simple. The POA dated May 4, 2012 through which K Radhakrishnan and AZB & Partners claim to represent General Electric Company in these writ proceedings is illegal and invalid because such POA could not have been executed by Alexander Dimitrief under the Board Resolution through which Alexander Dimitrief claims his authority.
43. K Radhakrishnan cannot therefore act for and represent General Electric Company in these writ proceedings and AZB & Partners cannot appear for General Electric Company as the vakalatnama in their favor signed by K Radhakrishnan is invalid.
44. This fraud on the Delhi High Court is a serious matter. General Electric Company is accused of corrupt and illegal activities in this writ petition in connection with high-value Railway Ministry tenders for diesel and electric locomotive factories. The Delhi High Court issued notice to General Electric Company and directed it to file its reply. Instead of complying with the court order, senior legal management of General Electric devised an elaborate scheme to defraud the court and to avoid filing appropriate affidavits and replies. Through this fraudulent scheme effectuated with the help of external lawyers from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and from AZB & Partners, senior legal management of General Electric Company has caused an unauthorised person (K Radahakrishnan) to file unauthorised, false and evasive affidavits before the court misrepresenting these as affidavits being filed on behalf of General Electric Company.
45. It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a legal entity like a company in court proceedings without being duly authorised in accordance with law and without producing such duly executed authority documents. It is also basic and settled law that no lawyer can represent a party in court proceedings without placing on record a vakalatnama duly executed by such party authorising the lawyer to represent it.
46. The Court has no discretion to allow a company to be represented in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and sufficient authority documents and has failed to establish his authority to represent the company. The Court has no discretion to permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and valid vakalatnama.
47. This fraud also constitutes a major breach of corporate governance principles and laws by the senior management of General Electric Company and is an issue for US regulators and the US Department of Justice to investigate. The petitioner has brought this matter to the attention of the United States Embassy in New Delhi, the US SEC and the United States Department of Justice.
48. This application also raises the issue of the unauthorised and fraudulent representation of GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited by AZB & Partners before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 – in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others.
49. I now describe how K R Radhakrishnan and NanjuGanpathy and AZB & Partners are also fraudulently claiming to represent the two Indian subsidiaries of General Electric Company who are respondents 5 and 6 in this writ petition without being duly authorised and without legal and valid authority documents.
50. Respondent 6 is GE India Industrial Private Limited (hereafter referred to as GE India) while Respondent 7 is GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (GE Global Sourcing India).
51. Mr NanjuGanpathy and AZB & Partners (AZB) appeared for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India in this matter on 9 May 2012. AZB continued to appear for GE India on 14, 16, 25, 29 and 30 May 2012; on 3, 13, and 19 July 2012; and on 12 October 2012.
52. On 4 July 2012, AZB filed an alleged counter affidavit/ reply to the writ petition purporting to be the response of all three General Electric respondents i.e., General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (respondents 1, 6 and 7 respectively).
53. This document dated filed on 4 July 2012, was allegedly signed by one K Radhakrishnan, and merely states that K Radhakrishnan was the authorized signatory of respondents 1, 6 and 7. The document contains a verification clause which was signed but not affirmed before an oath commissioner. A two page affidavit of K Radhakrishnan attached to this document merely states that K Radhakrishnan is the authorised signatory of respondents 1, 6 and 7 in the matter "pursuant to the powers of attorney executed in my favour in this regard". Neither these alleged powers of attorney nor any other authority documents were annexed to this document which otherwise contained thirteen annexures with the document itself running to 206 pages.
54. On 12 October, 2012, the petitioner pointed out to the court that no authority documents had been placed on record to establish that K Radhakrishnan was authorized to represent respondents 1, 6 and 7 and as a result the following direction was issued by the court in its order dated 12 October 2012:
"Ms Seema Sapra, petitioner in person, opposes the condonation of delay of one day on the ground that the counter affidavit by itself ought not to be on record as the person who has sworn the affidavit, i.e., Mr.K.R. Radhakrishnan is not authorized to file the counter affidavit, on behalf of respondent no. 1. Even while, Ms Sapra says that this objection is confined to respondent no. 1 only, she adds that no documents had been filed on record to show that there is authority vested in Mr.K.R. Radhakrishnan, on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7 as well.
Mr Ganpathy, who appears for respondent nos. 1, 6 and 7, says that he will place the requisite documents on record.
Let the same be done within two weeks."
55. On 19 October, 2012, AZB filed three documents which were not supported by affidavit. These three documents were a power of attorney dated 4 May 2012 alleged executed by Alexander Dimitrief on behalf of General Electric Company and alleged copies of two alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 passed by respondents 6 and 7 (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited). The index (table of contents) accompanying these documents and signed by a lawyer from AZB & Partners wrongly described the contents as "Power of Attorney on behalf of Respondents 1, 6 & 7". No powers of attorney were produced for respondents 6 and 7. Instead the documents placed on record were alleged copies of alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 of respondents 6 and 7 which merely authorised a Director of these companies to execute powers of attorney in favour of K Radhakrishnan. The copies of the two alleged board resolutions placed on record were also not authenticated and certified as true copies in accordance with law and practice. True copies of these documents filed by AZB on 19 October 2012 are annexed hereto as Annexure P-2.
56. Mr NanjuGanpathy and AZB & Partners (AZB) continued to appear for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India in this matter on 8, 19, 26 and 30 November 2012; and on 5 December 2012.
57. The petitioner inspected the court record and discovered that AZB/ NanjuGanpathy (along with Rajiv Nayar, Sr Advocate) were appearing for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India without having filed any vakalatnamas. The petitioner filed CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012) objecting to AZB representing GE India and GE Global Sourcing India without filing vakalatnamas. AZB filed three separate vakalatnamas on 7 December 2012, two of which purported to appoint AZB to represent GE India and GE Global Sourcing India.
58. On 10 December 2012, CM 19370/ 2012 was listed before court and the petitioner objected in court to AZB's appearance for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India. On this date, NanjuGanpathy lied to the court and stated that vakalatnamas had been filed much earlier but were not on record. The electronic case history maintained by the court registry establishes that Mr NanjuGanpathy misled the court as there is no record of AZB having filed vakalatnama(s) before 7 December 2012.
59. The vakalatnamas filed by AZB on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India on 7 December 2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and were invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75] which holds that a vakalatnama on behalf of a company must either bear the company seal or it must mention the name and designation of the person signing the vakalatnama (on behalf of the company) below the signature AND a copy of the authority must be annexed to the vakalatnama. The Supreme Court further clarified that if a vakalatnama is executed by a power-of-attorney holder of a party, the failure to disclose that it is being executed by an attorney holder and failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney will render the vakalatnama defective.
60. The petitioner filed CM 19683/2012 on 14 December 2012 pointing out that the vakalatnamas dated 7 December 2013 were invalid and did not annex the required authority documents.
61. AZB then filed two other affidavits on 17 December 2012 signed and verified by K Radhakrishnan.
62. An affidavit filed by K R Radhakrishnan on 17 December 2012 is an alleged reply to CM 18642/ 2012 (it begins at page 3874 in volume 11 of the court record). A true copy of this affidavit is annexed hereto as Annexure P-3. This affidavit contains the following statement at page 3878 of the court record:
"… the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 issued Board Resolutions authorizing Mr K R Radhakrishnan to take all necessary steps to prosecute and/ or defend the said two entities. It would further be necessary to mention that no Power of Attorney as envisaged in each of the said Board Resolutions was issued as the Board Resolution(s) issued clearly empowered and authorized Mr K R Radhakrishnan to do all that was necessary to effectively prosecute and/ or defend actions to be initiated by these entities and/ or initiated against these entities."
63. The above statement is false in so far as it states that the alleged Board Resolutions dated 7 May 2012 (for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India) themselves empowered and authorised K R Radhakrishnan to defend this writ petition on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India.
64. On the contrary, the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 allegedly issued by GE India and GE Global Sourcing India clearly contemplated the execution of powers of attorney in favour of K Radhakrishnan. These alleged board resolution stated: "RESOLVED FURTHER THAT a Power of Attorney be executed for this purpose in favour of K R Radhakrishnan and any one Director of the Company be and is hereby authorised to sign the same for and on behalf of the company". In his affidavit dated 17 December 2012, at page 3878 of the court record, K Radhakrishnan clearly admits that the powers of attorney contemplated by the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 were never issued/ executed in his favour. The legal effect of this failure/ omission to execute powers of attorney on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India in favour of K Radhakrishnan is that he was never appointed as the "attorney" for these companies. He therefore at no time had the authority to sign vakalatnamas and affidavits on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India in favour of AZB for the purposes of this writ petition.
65. There is another crucial defect in the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 under which K Radhakrishnan first claimed the authority to represent GE India and GE Global Sourcing India. These board resolutions purport to authorize the execution of a power of attorney in favour of K Radhakrishnan to act for these companies in connection with "Proceedings" which are defined in the board resolutions as follows:
"initiate proceedings before the Bar Council of Delhi (under the provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules) or Bar Council of India or any Civil Courts, Criminal Courts, High Courts, Supreme Court of India or before any other Quasi-Judicial authority, Tribunal, Government Authority or Local authority, against Ms. Seema Sapra, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi ("Proceedings")"
66. The "Proceedings" covered by these Board Resolutions dated 7 May 2012 therefore do not include this writ petition filed by the Petitioner in February 2012 against GE India and GE Global Sourcing India. The subject matter of the Board Resolutions dated 7 May 2012 was limited to proceedings that these companies might initiate against the Petitioner and did not include proceedings already initiated against these companies by the Petitioner.
67. Another affidavit filed by AZB and signed and verified by K R Radhakrishnan on 17 December 2012.is wrongly labelled as the "Confirmatory Affidavit on behalf of Respondents 1, 6 and 7" and is on the court record in volume 11 starting from page 3856. A true copy of this affidavit is annexed hereto as Annexure P-4. This affidavit states that K R Radhakrishnan is the company secretary of respondent 6, i.e. GE India.
68. This affidavit signed and verified by K R Radhakrishnan contains the following misrepresentations:
(i) It misrepresents that the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 authorised K R Radhakrishnan to act for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India for the purposes of the present writ petition and misrepresents that K R Radhakrishnan was the duly constituted attorney for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India when he signed and verified and caused affidavits to be filed on behalf of these companies in this writ petition.
(ii) It misrepresents that in July 2012, K R Radhakrishnan signed vakalatnamas for respondents 1, 6 and 7 in favor of AZB for the purposes of this writ petition. The single vakalatnama in favor of AZB that K R Radhakrishnan claims to have signed on or about 2 July 2012 appears to be the vakalatnama that AZB used to file the fraudulent OMP 647/ 2012 on behalf of GE India and against the Petitioner as respondent.
69. This affidavit then goes on to produce copies of new board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 allegedly passed by GE India and GE Global Sourcing India under which K R Radhakrishnan now claims to be the duly constituted attorney for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India instead of under the earlier board resolutions dated 7 May 2012. These alleged new board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 are very strange documents that attempt to masquerade as powers of attorney and in fact misrepresent themselves as powers of attorney.
70. These alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 record that the consent of the Boards of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India is accorded to authorise and appoint K R Radhakrishnan (the Company Secretary of GE India) as the attorney of these companies interalia to defend proceedings initiated against these companies by the Petitioner in the Delhi High Court. These board resolutions do not contain the usual provision authorising the execution of the power of attorney instrument.
71. Instead in their final paragraph, these board resolutions claim to be the power of attorney instruments themselves and state: "RESOLVED FURTHER THAT this power of attorney is governed by, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of India and shall remain in full force and effect until it is revoked by the company in writing or until December 16, 2014 whichever occurs earlier".
72. The fraud being perpetrated on the court is extremely evident. In the first instance, the source of Radhakrishnan's authority to represent GE India and GE Global Sourcing India is described as powers of attorney. Board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 are then produced which do not cover the instant proceedings and which envisage the execution of powers of attorney which are admittedly never executed. Vakalatnamas are not filed. Affidavits are signed and filed by K R Radhakrishnan even though he was not duly constituted as the attorney for the companies.
73. Once this fraud is exposed, a second attempt at fraudulently deceiving this court is made. In this second round of fraud, alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 are produced which themselves claim to be the power of attorney instruments.
74. Before delving into the legal issue of whether or not these alleged board resolutions are powers of attorney and can directly appoint K R Radhakrishnan as the attorney of the companies, it is pointed out that the copies of the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 placed on record are not certified and authenticated as per usual practice and law. The certified minutes containing these board resolutions have not been placed on record.
75. A comparison of the letterheads on which "copies" of the two alleged board resolutions for GE Global Sourcing India have placed on record raises the suspicion that these documents are not genuine. The letterheads on which these two board resolutions are printed are different even though they are for the same company and were apparently signed in May and December of 2012.
76. The two alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 do not bear the company seal for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India. The GE logo on the letterheads on which these board resolutions are printed is illegible. The persons who have signed these documents are not identified.
77. The two alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 also do not bear the company seals and are merely stamped with a rubber stamp. The letterhead on which the alleged board resolution for GE India dated 17 December 2012 is printed also has a blurred and obscured GE logo.
78. Another unusual aspect about the two board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 is that both were apparently passed by circulation on 17 December 2012 and the vakalatnamas signed pursuant thereto are also dated 17 December 2012 and the affidavit that places these board resolutions on the court record was signed, verified and filed also on 17 December 2012.
79. The issue before the court is do the two board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 constitute powers of attorney appointing K R Radhakrishnan as the duly constituted attorney for respondents 6 and 7, i.e., for GE India and for GE Global Sourcing India.
80. The Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 defines a power of attorney as "any instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it."
81. A Power of Attorney therefore is a written legal instrument executed by the person devolving the power of attorney on another "specified person" and thereby empowering the specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing the instrument.
82. Section 46 of the Companies Act provides:
"Form of contracts
(1) Contracts on behalf of a company may be made as follows:—
(a) a contract which, if made between private persons, would by law be required to be in writing signed by the parties to be charged therewith, may be made on behalf of the company in writing signed by any person acting under its authority, express or implied, and may in the same manner be varied or discharged;
(b) a contract which, if made between private persons, would by law be valid although made by parole only and not reduced into writing, may be made by parole on behalf of the company by any person acting under its authority, express or implied, and may in the same manner be varied or discharged.
(2) A contract made according to this section shall bind the company."
83. A power of attorney on behalf of a company would therefore fall within Clause 1(a) of Section 46 of the Companies Act and is required to be in writing and executed/ signed on behalf of the company by a person acting under the authority of the company.
84. Section 48 of the Companies Act provides:
"Execution of Deeds
(1) A company may, by writing under its common seal, empower any person, either generally or in respect of any specified matters, as its attorney, to execute deeds on its behalf in any place either in or outside India.
(2) A deed signed by such an attorney on behalf of the company and under his seal where sealing is required, shall bind the company and have the same effect as if it were under its common seal."
85. Under Indian law, a power of attorney executed on behalf of a company must be a written instrument signed by an authorized signatory for and on behalf of the company.
86. Admittedly, the powers of attorney envisaged under the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 in favour of K R Radhakrishnan were never executed.
87. The new alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 placed on record by AZB purport to directly appoint K R Radhakrishnan as the attorney of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India without the execution of written powers of attorney in favour of Radhakrishnan signed by an authorized signatory of these companies. This is not permissible under Indian law.
88. The documents described as copies of the board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 placed on record with Radhakrishnan's affidavit dated 17 December 2012 cannot and do not in law appoint K R Radhakrishnan as the attorney for these companies.
89. A board resolution of a company is not a written instrument/ contract executed on behalf of the company. Board resolutions by themselves cannot appoint someone as an attorney of the company as this can only be done through a written instrument duly executed on behalf of the company by an authorized signatory signing such an instrument in the name of, for and on behalf of the company. This has admittedly not been done in the present case.
90. K R Radhakrishnan is therefore not a duly constituted attorney for GE India or for GE Global Sourcing India.
91. It is pointed out that the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 omit to mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the nature/ character/ subject matter of the writ petition.
92. The fact of this fraud being committed on the Delhi High Court is further confirmed by a strange provision in the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012. All these board resolutions provide that the powers conferred "shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise affected by the fact of the Company acting either directly or through another agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained".
93. This clause therefore raises the likelihood that the "unauthorized" instructions being sent to K R Radhakrishnan and/ or to AZB are not being sent directly from GE India or from GE Global Sourcing India but via other intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple layers of separation between the companies (and their legal officers) and these court proceedings are being maintained.
94. The vakalatnamas dated 17 December 2012 purportedly signed by him in favour of AZB on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India are therefore unauthorized and invalid.
95. The several affidavits signed and filed in this matter by K R Radhakrishnan on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India are also unauthorized as well as being false and perjurious.
96. AZB has continued to appear for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India in court in this matter without authority on subsequent dates including on 12, 19, 20 and 21 December 2012; on 7, 14, 16, 23, and 24 January 2013; on 4, 15 and 27 February 2013; on 18 March 2013; on 1, 11, 12, 18, 22 and 29 April, 2013; on 1, 3, 16, 22 and 31 May 2013.
97. Though the petitioner has raised this issue before the court on several dates and in subsequent applications, the Bench has so far failed to even take up this issue for hearing, arguments and decision.
98. Given that K R Radhakrishnan and AZB are not authorized to represent General Electric Company or its two Indian subsidiaries, GE India Industrial Private Limited or GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited, no affidavit or application filed by AZB in this matter on behalf of respondents 1, 6 and 7 should be considered or heard by the court until the court hears and decides the issues raised herein regarding the lack of authority in K R Radhakrishnan and AZB to represent these respondents.
99. On 17 July, 2013, I applied to inspect the court file. The file was first not made available to me and my application was returned with an invalid objection. I complained to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and upon her intervention, I was finally able to inspect the court file.
100. I found that AZB has filed three fresh vakalatnamas on 16 July 2013 which have been placed in the "B" folder of the court file. These three vakalatnamas are also signed by K R Radhakrishnan. The fresh vakalatnamas dated 16 July 2013 for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India rely upon the alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012. The fresh vakalatnama filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 for General Electric Company (respondent 1) produces a new power of attorney allegedly executed on 29 April 2013 by Mr Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company and allegedly apostilled in the United States on 10 May 2013. Certified copies of the three vakalatnamas and the copy of the alleged POA dated 9 April 2013 executed by Bradford Berenson as filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 have already been placed on the court record by the petitioner and are also attached to this application as Annexure P-5
100A. As already dealt with above, these alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 do not constitute Radhakrishnan as the constituted attorney for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India and do not confer upon him any authority to execute vakalatnamas for GE India and for GE Global Sourcing India.
101. The fresh vakalatnamas dated 16 July 2013 filed by AZB in this matter for respondents 6 and 7 (GE India and GE Global Sourcing India) are therefore invalid and do not confer any authority on AZB to represent these respondents in this writ petition.
102. The fresh vakalatnamadated (9 May 2013) filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 for General Electric Company (respondent 1) has been allegedly signed by Mr Bradford Berenson describing himself as Vice President and Senior Counsel, Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric Company. Even though this document records that it has been signed in the United States (In Fairfield Connecticut) it has not been apostilled. This alleged vakalatnama therefore cannot be relied upon by the Delhi High Court.
102A. The fresh vakalatnama filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 for General Electric Company (respondent 1) produces a new power of attorney allegedly executed on 29 April 2013 by Mr Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company and apostilled in the United States on 10 May 2013. I have read this new POA dated 29 April 2013 signed by Bradford Berenson and its provisions/ clauses are identical to those in the earlier POA dated 4 May 2012 signed by Alexander Dimitrief.
102B. The alleged POA dated 29 April 2013 executed by Bradford Berenson states that it cancels and supersedes the earlier alleged POA executed by Alexander Dimitrief.
102C. I also point out that the law requires that original copies of legal documents executed overseas and filed in Indian courts which are notarised and apostilled must be filed in the Indian courts where these documents are relied upon. However, AZB has not produced the alleged original apostilled POAs executed by Alexander Dimitrief(dated 2 May 2012) and by Bradford Berenson (dated 29 April 2013).
103. Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as the Operational Officer for Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric Company on 15 October 2012.
104. As Operational Officer for General Electric Company for litigation, Mr Bradford Berenson's authority under the Board Resolution of General Electric Company would be subject to the same limitations as have been elaborated upon hereinabove in the context of the authority of Mr Alexander Dimitrief and Mr Brackett Denniston.
105. The POA dated 29 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson purportedly does the following:
(e) It purports to delegate to K R Radhakrishnan the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company.
(f) It purports to delegate to K R Radhakrishnan the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company.
(g) It purports to delegate to K R Radhakrishnan the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name of and on behalf of General Electric Company.
(h) It purports to authorize K R Radhakrishnan to accept service of summons and notices from a Court on behalf of General Electric Company.
106. Under the original document (the Board Resolution) conferring authority on him, Bradford Berenson did not/ does not have the authority to delegate to any person the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name and on behalf of General Electric Company.
107. Therefore Bradford Berenson could not have delegated/ can not delegate to K R Radhakrishnan (or to any other person) the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name and on behalf of General Electric Company.
108. The POA dated 29 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company is in excess of the authority vested in Bradford Berenson under the Board Resolution and is therefore illegal, unauthorised and invalid and it can confer no authority on K R Radhakrishnan.
109. K R Radhakrishnan is therefore still not an authorised signatory of General Electric Company despite the new alleged POA dated 29 April 2013 signed by Bradford Berenson. The new vakalatnama executed by Radhakrishnan on 16 July 2013 appointing AZB to represent General Electric Company is also invalid.
110. Bradford Berenson also cannot ratify the vakalatnamas and affidavits purportedly signed by Radhakrishnan on behalf of General Electric Company. This is because the purported delegation of authority by Bradford Berenson on Radhakrishnan to execute powers of attorney and/ or court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company is ultra vires the Board Resolution of General Electric Company which is the constitutional document and source of all authority to execute documents/ instruments on behalf of General Electric Company.
111. Just like Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson is under the terms of Paragraph A of the Board Resolution, only authorized to himself execute on behalf of General Electric Company the instruments of the type described in Paragraph A. The Board Resolution does not authorize Bradford Berenson to further delegate this authority to other persons.
112. It is pointed out that the POA dated 29 April 2013 also omits to mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the nature/ character/ subject matter of the writ petition.
113. This alleged POA dated 29 April 2013 signed by Bradford Berenson also provides that the powers conferred by the POA "shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise affected by the fact of the Grantor acting either directly or through another agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained".
114. This clause in the POA dated 29 April 2013 therefore further supports the likelihood that the "unauthorized" instructions being sent to K R Radhakrishnan and/ or to AZB are not being sent directly from General Electric Company but via other intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple layers of separation between General Electric Company (and its legal officers) and these court proceedings are being maintained.
115. The issue is very simple. The POA dated May 4, 2012 (signed by Alexander Dimitrief) and the new POA dated 29 April 2013 (signed by Bradford Berenson) through which K R Radhakrishnan and AZB & Partners claim to represent General Electric Company in these writ proceedings are both illegal and invalid because such POAs could not have been executed by Alexander Dimitrief or by Bradford Berenson under the Board Resolution through which Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson claim their authority.
116. K R Radhakrishnan cannot therefore act for and represent General Electric Company in these writ proceedings and AZB & Partners cannot appear for General Electric Company as the vakalatnamas (dated 7 December 2012, 17 December 2012, and 16 July 2013) in their favor signed by K R Radhakrishnan are invalid.
117. It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a legal entity like a company in court proceedings without being duly authorised in accordance with law and without producing such duly executed authority documents. It is also basic and settled law that no lawyer can represent a party in court proceedings without placing on record a vakalatnama duly executed by such party authorising the lawyer to represent it.
118. The Court has no discretion to allow a company to be represented in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and sufficient authority documents and has failed to establish his authority to represent the company. The Court has no discretion to permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and valid vakalatnama.
119. This matter was scheduled for hearing on 18 July 2013. On 17 July 2013, the petitioner inspected the court file and found out that on 16 July 2013, AZB had filed three new vakalatnamas in this matter for respondents 1, 6 and 7. The petitioner sent three emails and at least two text messages to lawyers from AZB including to Mr NanjuGanpathy requesting that a copy of the documents filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 under diary no. 101173 be provided to the petitioner. The petitioner also requested AZB for a copy of these documents during the court hearings on 18 July and 22 July 2013.
120. Since AZB & Partners and General Electric chose to ignore the petitioner's request for copies of the latest (third) version of vakalatnamas and authority documents filed by them in the captioned matter in the Delhi High Court on 16 July 2013, the petitioner obtained certified copies from the court. The original certified copies of the alleged vakalatnamas and authority documents placed on record by AZB on 16 July 2013 are attached hereto as Annexure P-5
121. Also attached hereto as Annexure P-6 is a copy of a letter dated January 4, 2011 signed by Mr Bradford Berenson when he was with Sidley Austin LLP. This letter provides a specimen signature for Mr Bradford Berenson.
122. It is pointed out that the signatures allegedly affixed by Mr Bradford Berenson to the vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 and Power of Attorney dated April 29, 2013 produced by AZB do not match the signature of Mr Bradford Berenson in the attached letter dated January 4, 2011.
123. The signatures of Barbara Mondulick (notary public) on the vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 and Power of Attorney dated April 29, 2013 produced by AZB do not match. These also do not match the signature of Barbara Mondulick on the Power of Attorney dated 4 May 2012 and on the signed statement of Mr Brackett Denniston dated 17 December 2012 placed on the record earlier by AZB.
124. The vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 placed on record by AZB has an uncoloured embossed seal on it next to Ms Barbara Mondulick's alleged signature. Since this seal is uncoloured, it is not visible in the certified copy annexed hereto as Annexure P-5, though it is visible in the original document which the petitioner has inspected. However, it is pointed out that no such embossed seal of Ms Barbara Mondulick is visible on the copies of the power of attorneys dated 4 May 2012 and 29 April 2013 or on the signed statement of Mr Brackett Denniston dated 17 December 2012 placed on record by AZB and all of which have allegedly been notarised by Ms Barbara Mondulick.
125. The copies of the power of attorney dated 4 May 2012 and Mr Brackett Denniston's statement dated 17 December 2012 both allegedly notarised by Ms Barbara Mondulick bear a rubber stamp seal of Ms Barbara Mondulick. On the other hand the power of attorney dated 29 April 2013 and the vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson do not bear any such rubber stamp seal of Ms Barbara Mondulick.
126. The three allegedly apostilled documents that AZB relies upon (the POA dated 4 May 2012, the POA dated 29 April 2013, and the vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson) have not been placed on record in original. Instead photocopies have been filed. Unless and until the original apostilled documents are placed on record, it is impossible to ascertain if these documents and apostilles are genuine. The reason being that the apostille pages are generic documents merely certifying the signature of Barbara Mondulick to a "public document" without describing/ identifying the accompanying public document or its date. Copies of these apostille pages could have been taken from other unconnected documents signed by Ms Barbara Mondulick and attached to the copies of the alleged POA dated 4 May 2012, the alleged POA dated 29 April 2013, and the alleged vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson. Only original apostilled documents can be relied upon and these have not been produced on the record.
127. A copy of the Notary Manual for the State of Connecticut has been placed on record by the petitioner along with her affidavit dated 27 July 2013. The acknowledgement declaration allegedly printed by Barbara Mondulick on the vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson is not in accordance with the rules prescribed by the State of Connecticut in this notary manual.
128. Ms Barbara Mondulick appears to have ties to General Electric Company and is therefore an "insider" to the company.
129. The new alleged power of attorney dated 29 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson does not contain the safeguard provisions that were present in the earlier power of attorney dated 4 May 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief.
130. A comparison of the POA dated 4 May 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and the POA dated 29 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson shows the following:
POA dated 4 May 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief
POA dated 29 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson
Records that Seema Sapra has instituted certain proceedings in the Delhi High Court against General Electric Company, (i.e., the present writ petition)
Does not mention any proceedings instituted by Seema Sapra against General Electric Company
Provides that: "THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY is strictly limited to act as a signatory on behalf of the Grantor, in respect of documents in relation to the Proceedings, which are specifically pre-approved in writing by the Grantor in advance. This Power of Attorney does not empower the Attorney to exercise any discretion on behalf of the Grantor, or to do any other act other than as specified herein".
Does not contain such a provision.
131. Prima facie the new documents filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 appear to be forged/ inauthentic documents besides being unauthorised and invalid for the reasons already set out in CM 10493/ 2013 filed in W.P. (Civil) 1280/ 2012. This application was listed before court on 22 July 2013 and was for undisclosed and unrecorded reasons adjourned unheard by Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Deepa Sharma to 22 August 2013.
132. K R Radhakrishnan cannot therefore act for and represent General Electric Company, or GE India industrial Private Limited or GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited in these writ proceedings and AZB & Partners cannot appear for these respondents as all the three sets of alleged vakalatnamas (dated 7 December 2012, 17 December 2012, and 16 July 2013) in their favor signed by Bradford Berenson/ K R Radhakrishnan are unauthorised and invalid. The authority documents attached to the vakalatnamas dated 16 July 2013 filed by AZB are also unauthorised, invalid and illegal, and prima facie appear to be forged and inauthentic documents.
133. It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a legal entity like a company in court proceedings without being duly authorised in accordance with law and without producing such duly executed authority documents. It is also basic and settled law that no lawyer can represent a party in court proceedings without placing on the record a vakalatnama duly executed by such party authorising the lawyer to represent it.
134. The Court has no discretion to allow a company to be represented in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and sufficient authority documents and has failed to establish his authority to represent the company. The Court has no discretion to permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and valid vakalatnama.
135. This unauthorised and fraudulent representation of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited by K R Radhakrishnan and by AZB & Partners/ Mr NanjuGanapathy in these whistleblower writ proceedings accusing General Electric of corruption, fraud, forgery and of obstruction of justice, is a monumental fraud being committed on the Delhi High Court, on the Government of India, on General Electric Company, and on the petitioner by General Electric Company's in-house lawyers (Mr Brackett Denniston, Mr Alexander Dimitrief, Mr Bradford Berenson, Mr Jeffrey Eglash) acting in collusion with AZB & Partners (Ms Zia Mody, Mr NanjuGanpathy, Mr ManpreetLamba) and with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (specifically lawyers Mr F Joseph Warin and Mr John Chhesley).
135. This application is being made in the interest of justice.
135A. The massive fraud on the Hon'ble Court described in the present application is another reason why the Petitioner's life continues to be in grave danger and why she continues to be poisoned.
136. This application relies upon the entire court record of Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 and upon the petitioner's complaints being emailed to authorities including to the Registrar General of the High Court.
136A. Also relevant for this application is another fraudulent and unauthorised affidavit dated 14 January 2013 signed by Radhakrishnan and filed in this matter as a reply to CM 105/2013 by AZB. A true copy of this affidavit is annexed hereto as Annexure P-7. It is also available in volume 14 of the court record starting at page 4902.
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Declare that K R Radhakrishnan is not the authorised signatory of General Electric Company (respondent 1); GE India Industrial Private Limited (respondent 6); or GE India Global Sourcing Private Limited (respondent 7); for the purposes of this writ petition and that he cannot represent these respondents in this matter or sign court pleadings and/ or affidavits on behalf of these respondents in this matter;
(b) Declare that K R Radhakrishnan has unlawfully impersonated as the authorised signatory of respondents 1 6 and 7 in this matter as part of a criminal conspiracy to defraud this Hon'ble Court with intent to file false and unauthorised affidavits and to cover up the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery and manipulation of the Railway Madhepura&Marhowra Projects and tenders pending before this court against respondents 1, 6 and 7 and to deny the petitioner/whistleblower/witness her rights for whistleblower protection against respondents 1, 6 and 7;
(c) Declare that the three vakalatnamas signed by K Radhakrishnan and filed on December 7, 2012 and refiled on December 11, 2012; and the three vakalatnamas signed by K Radhakrishnan and filed on December 17, 2012; and the vakalatnama allegedly signed by Bradford Berenson on 9 May 2013 and the two vakalatnamas signed by K Radhakrishnan and filed on July 16, 2013 are all invalid, unlawful and defective;
(d) Declare that the alleged Power of Attorney executed by Alexander Dimitrief on 4 May 2012 purportedly on behalf of General Electric Company and filed in this court under which K Radhakrishnan claimed to be authorised signatory for General Electric Company (respondent 1) is unlawful, fraudulent and violates the Board Resolution of General Electric Company numbered 10855 adopted by the Board of Directors of General Electric Company in its Board of Directors Meeting on 6 November 2009;
(e) Declare that the alleged Power of Attorney executed by Bradford Berenson on 29 April 2013 purportedly on behalf of General Electric Company and filed in this court under which K Radhakrishnan claimed to be authorised signatory for General Electric Company (respondent 1) is unlawful, fraudulent and violates the Board Resolution of General Electric Company numbered 10855 adopted by the Board of Directors of General Electric Company in its Board of Directors Meeting on 6 November 2009;
(f) Declare that the alleged copies of the Board Resolutions of respondents 6 and 7 (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) dated 7 May 2012 and dated 17 December 2012 filed in this writ petition and under which K Radhakrishnan claims to be authorised signatory for respondents 6 and 7 are fraudulent, forged, invalid and fabricated documents and these documents do not constitute K R Radhakrishnan as the authorised signatory and representative of respondents 6 and 7 for this writ petition;
(g) Declare that Mr NanjuGanpathy/ AZB & Partners cannot appear in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 on behalf of respondents 1, 6 and 7 as the vakalatnamas filed by them on December 7, 2012 and refiled on December 11, 2012 and the vakalatnamas filed by them on December 17, 2012 and the vakalatnamas filed by them on 16 July 2013 are all defective and invalid and declare that Mr NanjuGanpathy/ AZB & Partners have no authority to represent respondents 1, 6 and 7 in these proceedings;
(h) Immediately prohibit appearance by Mr NanjuGanpathy and AZB & Partners on behalf of respondents 1, 6 and 7 in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 on the ground that vakalatnamas and authority documents placed on record by AZB on behalf of respondents 1, 6 and 7 are defective and invalid;
(i) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to Mr Jeffrey Immelt (GE), Mr Brackett Denniston (GE), Mr Alexander Dimitrief (GE), Mr Bradford Berenson (GE), Mr Jeffrey Eglash (GE), Mr F. Joseph Warin (Gibson Dunn), Mr John Chesley (Gibson Dunn), Ms Zia Mody (AZB), Mr NanjuGanpathy (AZB), Mr ManpreetLamba (AZB), Mr Kartik Yadav (previously appearing for AZB), Mr Deepak Adlakha (ex GE-India), Mr Abhishek Tiwari (AZB), Ms Tejal Singh (GE India) and Mr K R Radhakrishnan(GE India) for committing a fraud on this court by using K R Radhakrishnanto impersonate as the authorised signatory for respondents 1, 6 and 7 and using him to file false and unauthorised affidavits, applications, pleadings, and vakalatnamas for respondents 1, 6, and 7 with criminal intent to commit a fraud on this Hon'ble Court, on the Government of India, on General Electric Company and on the Petitioner to facilitate a cover up of the complaints of corruption, forgery, fraud, tender manipulation, and illegal lobbying against respondents 1, 6 and 7 in connivance with the Railway Ministry (respondent 4);
(j) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to Mr Jeffrey Immelt (GE), Mr Brackett Denniston (GE), Mr Alexander Dimitrief (GE), Mr Bradford Berenson (GE), Mr Jeffrey Eglash (GE), Mr F. Joseph Warin (Gibson Dunn), Mr John Chesley (Gibson Dunn), Ms Zia Mody (AZB), Mr NanjuGanpathy (AZB), Mr ManpreetLamba (AZB), Mr Kartik Yadav (previously appearing for AZB), Mr Deepak Adlakha (ex GE-India), Mr Abhishek Tiwari (AZB), Ms Tejal Singh (GE India) and Mr K R Radhakrishnan (GE India) for aiding and abetting perjury by enabling the filing of false and unauthorised affidavits by Mr K R Radhakrishnan in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 with intent to subvert and sabotage the present writ petition;
(k) Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to General Electric Company (respondent 1); GE India Industrial Private Limited (respondent 6); and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (respondent 7) for failing to appear before this Hon'ble Court despite issue and service of notice and summons dated 7 March 2012;
(l) Direct the criminal prosecution of K R Radhakrishnan for criminal impersonation, fraud, cheating, forgery, and perjury in respect of the complaints set out in the present application;
(m) Issue direct notice on the writ petition once again to respondents 1, 6 and 7 by dasti email and directing these respondents to appear in this matter through properly authorised counsel/advocates and to file their response to the pleadings through a duly authorised signatory duly empowered to sign court pleadings on behalf of these respondents;
(n) Direct the court registry to return the defective vakalatnamas filed on December 7, 2012 and refiled on December 11, 2012 and to also return the defective vakalatnamas filed on December 17, 2012 and July 16, 2013 by NanjuGanpathy/ AZB & Partners in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75];
(o) Clarify that notice on the writ petition to respondents 8, 9, 10 and 11 as issued by this court on November 19, 2012, can be served dasti by email and courier only and not by all permissible modes of service;
(p) Direct AZB & Partners, NanjuGanapathy, and K R Radhakrishnan to produce the original records of the minutes of the board meetings/ resolutions of respondents 6 and 7 for the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012, allegedly issued by respondents 5 and 6;
(q) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
Place: New Delhi Petitioner in Person
21 November 2014 Seema Sapra
Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as
a result of corruption complaints against
General Electric and as a result of this whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless
In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
C. M. Appl. No. of 2014
In
Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra …Petitioner
versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, daughter of Late Shri A. R. Sapra, aged 43 years, previously resident of G 4, first floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi 110014 and rendered homeless on 30 May 2012 (because of and as a result of the whistleblower complaints of corruption, forgery, bribery, fraud and illegal activities made against General Electric, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Planning Commission, Railway Ministry and Ministry of Finance and as a result of the whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and because of my complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Soli J Sorabjee and Mr RaianKaranjawala) in contempt of this Hon'ble Court's order dated May 25, 2012 and presently homeless do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. I am the Petitioner in the present Petition and am well aware of the facts of the case and am competent to file the present affidavit.
2. I state that the accompanying application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking directions from the court in application seeking directions in connection with the fraud on the court as one K Radhakrishan (assisted by lawyers NanjuGanpathy and ManpreetLamba of AZB and by Deepak Adlakha, a lawyer who was fired by General Electric Company after this writ petition was filed) is impersonating respondents 1, 6 and 7 (General Electric Company and two Indian subsidiaries) before the Court using fraudulent and fabricated authority documents (along with affidavit) has been drafted by me and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed there-from and that all annexures to the application are true copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this 21st day of November 2014 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
C.M. Appl. No. of 2014
In
Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra …Petitioner
versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
INDEX
No.
Particulars
Page
1
Urgent Application
1
2
Court Fees
2
3
Petitioner's application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking directions from the court in connection with the fraud on the court as one K Radhakrishan (assisted interalia by lawyers NanjuGanpathy and ManpreetLamba of AZB and by Deepak Adlakha, a lawyer who was fired by General Electric Company after this writ petition was filed) is impersonating respondents 1, 6 and 7 (General Electric Company and two Indian subsidiaries) before the Court using fraudulent and fabricated authority documents (along with affidavit)
3-35
4
annexure P-1 - True copy of K Radhakrishnan'saffidavit filed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 through AZB on 7 January 2013 producing an extract from the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised on November 6, 2009) containing a Board Resolution No. 10855 (hereinafter referred to as the Board Resolution) which describes and limits the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company
36-50
5
Annexure P-2 – True copies of documents filed by AZB on 19 October, 2012 containing a power of attorney dated 4 May 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief on behalf of General Electric Company and alleged copies of two alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 passed by respondents 6 and 7 (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited)
51-57
6
Annexure P-3 – True copy of the affidavit filed by K R Radhakrishnan on 17 December 2012 as an alleged reply to CM 18642/ 2012
58-78
7
Annexure P-4 – True Copy of the affidavit filed by AZB and signed and verified by K R Radhakrishnan on 17 December 2012 which has been wrongfullydescribed as the "Confirmatory Affidavit on behalf of Respondents 1, 6 and 7
79-96
6
Annexure P-5 - Certified copies of documents filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 containing an alleged vakalatnama for General Electric Company allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson, a copy of the alleged POA dated 9 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson purportedly on behalf of General Electric Company, and two vakalatnamas dated 16 July 2013 allegedly signed by K Radhakrishnan
97-109
7
Annexure P-6 – True copy of a letter dated January 4, 2011 signed by Mr Bradford Berenson when he was with Sidley Austin LLP and providing a specimen signature for Mr Bradford Berenson
110-112
8
Annexure P-7 – True copy of fraudulent and unauthorised affidavit dated 14 January 2013 signed by Radhakrishnan and filed in this matter as a reply to CM 105/2013 by AZB
113-138
NDOH: 24 November 2014
Place: New Delhi Petitioner in Person
21 November 2014 Seema Sapra
Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of this whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless
9582716748
Note: All 17 respondents have been served with an advance copy of this application by email dated 21 November 2014
All the prayers are inter-connected and flow from each other. Please list the application before court as it is.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzdLbTmYqfPvdHNyVjc1T1pkT0k/edit?usp=drive_web pages 1-39 of Volume 11 of court record in WC 1280/2012
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzdLbTmYqfPvaXFjNV8tSUlXT3c/edit?usp=drive_web Pages 1-26 of Volume 14 in WPC 1280/2012
No comments:
Post a Comment