Fraud committed in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private Limited

Fraud committed in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private Limited

GE India Industrial Private Limited is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of the US conglomerate General Electric Company.

Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to GE India Industrial Private Limited on 7.3.2012. 

Notice was also issued to General Electric Company on 7.3.2012. The fraud committed in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of General Electric Company is separately dealt with at http://generalelectricfakeauthoritydocs.blogspot.in/

Advocate Nanju Ganpathy appeared on 9.5.2012 claiming to represent GE India Industrial Private Limited and continued to appear thereafter.

Mr Nanju Ganpathy is a Partner in the law-firm AZB & Partners.

Affidavits were filed on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited through one K Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited were produced.

The counter- affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 3.7.2012 merely stated that K Radhakrishnan was the authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited. The affidavit contained a verification clause which was signed but not affirmed before an oath commissioner. Another two-page affidavit of K Radhakrishnan was attached to this counter-affidavit which merely stated that K Radhakrishnan was the authorised signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited in the matter “pursuant to the powers of attorney executed in my favour in this regard”. No power of attorney nor any other authority document was annexed to this counter-affidavit which otherwise contained thirteen annexures with the affidavit itself running into 206 pages.

At Appellant's request, Delhi High Court order dated 12.10.2012 directed Nanju Ganpathy to produce authority documents to show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited.

Nanju Ganpathy filed a photocopy of a document on 19.10.2012 which was described as a board resolution dated 7 May 2012 passed by GE India Industrial Private Limited which was effective up to 31.3.2013. No power of attorney was produced for GE India Industrial Private Limited.

Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been filed so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).

Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi High Court registry shows a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.

Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and was defective and invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75]

The Supreme Court of India in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75] has ruled 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 ruled 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 the failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney will render the vakalatnama defective.

CM 19683/2012 filed by Appellant on 14.12.2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and did not annex the required authority documents.

A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This vakalatnama was signed by K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory for GE India Industrial Private Limited.

K Radhakrishnan also filed two affidavits dated 17.12.2012 on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited.   

The first affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 17.12.2012 was a reply to CM 18642/ 2012 (it begins at page 3874 of the court record). This affidavit contained 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.”

In this affidavit, K Radhakrishnan therefore clearly admitted that no power of attorney in his favour had been issued on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited pursuant to the Board Resolution dated 7.5.2012. A bare perusal of the Board Resolutions dated 7.5.2012 shows that it clearly contemplated the execution of a power of attorney in favour of K Radhakrishnan.

The Board Resolution dated 7.5.2012 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”.

The admitted non-execution of a power of attorney in favour of K Radhakrishnan on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited shows that K Radhakrishnan was never appointed as the attorney of GE India Industrial Private Limited for the purpose of this writ petition and he was not authorized to sign the vakalatnamas and court pleadings on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited.

Further the board resolution dated 7.5.2012 which was produced as an authority document by K Radhakrishnan did not even cover the Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 filed in the Delhi High Court by the Appellant against General Electric Company.

This Board Resolution was limited to “Proceedings” which were defined 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”)”

The “Proceedings” covered by the Board Resolutions dated 7.5.2012 therefore did not include the writ petition filed by the Appellant against GE India Industrial Private Limited as the subject matter of the Board Resolution was limited to proceedings that GE India Industrial Private Limited might initiate against the Appellant.

The fraud that was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court is extremely evident. In the first instance, the source of K Radhakrishnan’s authority to represent GE India Industrial Private Limited was described as a power of attorney in his favor. A board resolution dated 7.5.2012 was then produced which however did not cover the writ petition proceeding and which envisaged the execution of a power of attorney which was admittedly never executed. Vakalatnama was not filed. Affidavits were signed and filed through K Radhakrishnan even though he was not duly constituted as the attorney for GE India Industrial Private Limited.

Once the Appellant pointed out these deficiencies on the court record of the writ petition, a second attempt at fraudulently deceiving the court was attempted by producing a board resolution dated 17.12.2012 which misrepresents itself as a power of attorney.

The second affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 17.12.2012 produced a copy of what was described as another Board Resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 17.12.2012. K Radhakrishnan now claimed to be the constituted attorney for GE India Industrial Private Limited under this Board Resolution dated 17.12,2012.

This new alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 is a strange document that masquerades as a power of attorney by itself. It records that the consent of the Boards of GE India Industrial Private Limited is accorded to authorise and appoint K Radhakrishnan (the Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited) as the attorney of the Company interalia to defend proceedings initiated against the Company by Ms. Seema Sapra in the Delhi High Court. This board resolution does not contain the usual provision that contemplates and authorises the execution of a power of attorney instrument.

Instead in its final paragraph, this board resolution claims to be the power of attorney instrument itself and states: “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”.

Did the board resolution dated 17.12.2012 as filed constitute a power of attorney appointing K R Radhakrishnan as the duly constituted attorney for GE India? 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.” 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. 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.” 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. 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.” 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. The alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 purports to directly appoint K Radhakrishnan as the attorney of GE India without the execution of a written power of attorney instrument in favour of K Radhakrishnan signed by an authorized signatory of GE India. This is not permissible under Indian law. And the document described as a board resolution dated 17.12.2012 did not therefore amount to a power of attorney and was invalid.  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 was admittedly not done.

The copies of the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 placed on record were not certified and authenticated as per usual practice and law. The certified minutes containing these board resolutions were not produced.  

A comparison of the photocopies of the letterheads containing the two alleged board resolutions for GE India Industrial Private Limited which were filed raises the suspicion that these documents were not genuine. The alleged board resolution dated 7.5.2012 does not bear the company seal.  The GE logo on the letterhead on which these board resolutions are printed is illegible. The persons who have signed these documents dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 are not identified. The letterhead on which the alleged board resolution for GE India dated 17.12.2012 is printed has a blurred and obscured GE logo. Prima facie it appears that the documents filed as board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 are forged and unauthentic.

Both the board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 omitted to mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the nature/ character/ subject matter of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.

The fact of this fraud committed on the Delhi High Court is further confirmed by a strange provision in the board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012. Both 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”.

This clause was obviously inserted to allow for “unauthorized” instructions to be sent to K Radhakrishnan and Nanju Ganpathy which were not sent directly from GE India but via other unidentified intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple layers of separation between the Company (and its legal officers) and court proceedings in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280. 2012 were maintained. 

Nanju Ganpahy filed another vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 also signed by K Radhakrishnan. This vakalatnama also relied upon the alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 to establish K Radhakrishnan’s authority to act as attorney for GE India.

The Appellant filed CM 10493 of 2013 on 19.7.2013 placing the above facts and objections on record and objecting to K Radhakrishnan being allowed to represent GE India and objecting to Nanju Ganpathy appearing for GE India. This application was unfortunately not taken up for hearing.

On 21.11.2014, the Appellant moved another application being CM No. 18969 of 2014 again seeking directions on these issues. This was also unfortunately adjourned by the Court without being taken up despite the appellant’s requests that orders were necessary on these issues.

Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012 went before a new Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji on 19.1.2015. It was adjourned to 20 and then 22 January 2015. On all these three days, the Bench held a formal hearing for about an hour but the appellant was not permitted to argue the matter. The Bench was insistent that the matter had become infructuous. The Bench did not allow Ms. Seema Sapra to argue her case, and repeatedly kept interrupting her. For most of these three hours spread over three days, Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P. S Teji kept repeating that the matter was infructuous. They repeatedly interrupted Ms. Seema Sapra to prevent her from arguing the case. The matter was then adjourned to 3.2.2015.

On 19.1.2015, when Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 went before Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji, all the alleged authority documents filed for the three General Electric respondents had also expired by lapse of time on the following dates.

Alleged authority document	Date of expiry
Alleged Power of Attorney executed by Alexander Dimitrief on 4 May 2012 purportedly on behalf of General Electric Company (Respondent 1)	4 May 2013
Alleged Power of Attorney executed by Bradford Berenson on 29 April 2013 purportedly on behalf of General Electric Company (Respondent 1)	29 April 2014
Alleged Board Resolution of respondent 6 (GE India Industrial Private Limited) dated 7 May 2012	31 March 2013
Alleged Board Resolution of respondent 6 (GE India Industrial Private Limited) dated 17 December 2012	16 December 2014
Alleged Board Resolution of respondent 7 (GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) dated 7 May 2012	31 March 2013
Alleged Board Resolution of respondent 7 (GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) dated 17 December 2012	16 December 2014.

Despite the Appellant’s objections, orders dated 19, 20 and 22 January 2015 passed by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P S Teji recorded the appearance of Manpreet Lamba for GE India, General Electric Company and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited. The Appellant therefore declared her intent to impugn these orders in a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of India and applied for certified copies of these orders. This intent was also communicated by the Appellant to Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P S Teji on 19, 20, and 22 January 2015. The matter was adjourned to 3 February 2015.

The petitioner learnt that on 28 January 2015, some document/s described in the court’s electronic filing system as “vakalatnama” was filed under the name of Nanju Ganpathy in this matter under diary no. 37442/2015. The Petitioner repeatedly asked Mr Nanju Ganpathy to supply copies of these documents to the Petitioner but he did not respond.

The Petitioner therefore inspected the court record on 29 January 2015 and looked at the new documents filed through Nanju Ganpathy on 28 January 2015 which had been placed in the court file in folder B.

The Petitioner then filed CM 1882 of 2015 addressing these new alleged authority documents which were actually completely irrelevant documents being passed off as authority documents. The petitioner also sought copies of these documents. This application was listed before the High Court on 3.2.2015. The petitioner also applied for certified copies of the new alleged authority documents filed on 28.1.2015. On 2.2.2015 at around 4 pm, Nanju Ganpathy sent scanned copies of these new authority documents filed on 28.1.2015 to the Petitioner. These were incomplete as the scans excluded the edges of the documents.

Before addressing these new alleged authority documents filed on 28.1.2015, the nature of the hearing on 3.2.2015 is described below.

On 3.2.2015, Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji held another hearing for about an hour and a half and suddenly cut off the petitioner who had commenced arguments on the issue of the corruption involving General Electric Company, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Vinod Sharma (see http://gemarhowracorruption.blogspot.in/ ) and declared that they could not give the petitioner further time. They declared that judgment was being reserved. The Petitioner objected stating she had just started her arguments. The Bench ignored her and walked out.

CM 1882 of 2015 and the earlier applications on the issue of appearance by the General Electric respondents were not taken up for hearing on 3.2.2015 or decided.  

What were the new documents filed on 28.1.2015?

No new “vakalatnama” was filed. Three documents were filed which were described in the table of contents as:

Copy of Power of Attorney dated December 8, 2014 valid till September 30, 2015 filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6 Copy of Board Resolution dated December 10, 2014 on behalf of Respondent No. 6 Copy of Board Resolution dated September 26, 2013 on behalf of Respondent No. 6

The first document is what purports to be a Power of Attorney in favor of K Radhakrishnan allegedly executed by Tejal Patil on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited, who is described therein as a Director. This alleged POA is dated 8/12/2014 and was valid until 30/9/2015. This alleged POA refers to a Board Resolution dated 10/9/14 and claims to have been executed pursuant to this Board Resolution dated 10/9/14. This document does not mention WP Civil 1280/2012, or OMP 647/2012, or the alleged arbitration before Mr Deepak Verma, or the alleged complaint which was already made to the Bar Council of Delhi against Ms Seema Sapra. This alleged PoA has not been executed on non-judicial stamp paper and is also neither notarized nor attested. No company stamp is affixed. It bears signatures of two witnesses named as Ira Shukla and Shweta Malhotra without any information about who these witnesses are. Prima facie this POA is invalid and fraudulent.

The opening paragraph of this alleged Power of Attorney reads:

“KNOW ALL MEN BY THIS PRESENT THAT GE India Industrial Private Limited (hereinafter called “Company”) having registered office at 401, 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E-1,2,3 Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi 110 034 acting through Ms. Tejal Patil, Director of the Company, duly authorised by Board of Directors through resolution passed on 10th September, 2014 does hereby constitute and appoint K R Radhakrishnan, Company Secretary to 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”) and to prosecute, defend and for that purpose to appear & represent the Company and to perform and execute, with respect to the Proceedings, from time to time, all or any of the following acts, deeds and things, that is to say:- “

Note that this alleged Power of Attorney dated 8.12.2014 did in any case not cover the proceedings in Writ Petition Civil No.1280/2012 instituted against GE India by Ms. Seema Sapra as it was limited to proceedings that GE India might institute against Ms. Seema Sapra.

The second document filed is what is described as a board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 10/9/14 which merely refers to another earlier alleged board resolution dated 27/9/12 and purports to extend the validity of the latter resolution to 30/9/15. This is reproduced below.

Certified true copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company in its meeting held on September 10, 2014 Power of Attorney in favour of K R Radhakrishnan “RESOLVED THAT in partial modification of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 27th September 2012, the authority granted in favour of K R Radhakrishnan, be and is hereby extended to 30th September, 2015.” RESOLVED FURTHER THAT all the terms and conditions mentioned in all earlier resolutions remain unchanged.” RESOLVED FURTHER THAT a fresh power of attorney be executed for this purpose in favour of K Radhakrishnan and any one Director of the Company be and is hereby authorised to sign the same for and on behalf of the Company.” Certified to be true For GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. K R Radhakrishnan Company Secretary Membership No. F3276 R/o A-202, Emerald Court Essel Towers Gurgaon

The third document filed is what is also described as a board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 26/9/13 which merely refers to an earlier board resolution dated 27/9/12 and purports to extend the validity of the latter resolution to 30/9/14. This is reproduced below.

Certified true copy of the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company in its meeting held on September 26, 2013 Power of Attorney in favour of K R Radhakrishnan “RESOLVED THAT in partial modification of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on  27th September 2012, the authority granted in favour of K R Radhakrishnan, be and is hereby extended to 30th September, 2014.” RESOLVED FURTHER THAT all the terms and conditions mentioned in all earlier resolution(s) remain unchanged.” RESOLVED FURTHER THAT a fresh 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.” Certified to be true For GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. K R Radhakrishnan Company Secretary Membership No. F3276 R/o A-202, Emerald Court Essel Towers, Gurgaon Haryana-122002

So the new documents filed on 28.1.2015 were the following:

i.                   An alleged Power of Attorney executed by Tejal Patil in favour of K Radhakrishnan which did not apply to Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012.

ii.                 An alleged Board resolution dated 26.9.2013 which merely extends an earlier board resolution dated 27.8.012 which was not produced.

iii.              An alleged Board resolution dated 10.9.2014 which merely extends an earlier board resolution dated 27.8.012 which was not produced.

The new documents filed on 28.1.2015 refer to the following documents which were not produced:

i.                   A board resolution dated 10.9.2014 referred to in the Power of Attorney dated 8.12.2014 but which board resolution was not produced.

ii.                 A board resolution dated 27.8.2012 referred to in the alleged board resolutions dated 26.9.2013 and 10.9.2014.

The two alleged board resolutions dared 10.9.14 and 26.9.2013 merely refer to an earlier alleged resolution dated 27.9.12 and purport to extend the latter’s validity, which itself has not been produced and whose contents are therefore unknown. So we do not know for what purpose if any, K Radhakrishnan appointed was as attorney of GE India by the alleged board resolution dated 27.9.2012. The failure to produce this alleged board resolution dated 27/9/12 can only mean that no such resolution exists or if it does exist, it is irrelevant.

The fraud played on the Delhi High Court by the impersonator K Radhakrishnan falsely claiming to be the authorised signatory of GE India stands further exposed and established even by the last desperate attempt to file further fraudulent and irrelevant alleged authority documents on record behind the back of the petitioner on 28.1.2015.

A summary of the various authority documents which Advocate Nanju Ganpathy produced for K Radhakrishnan establishes the fraud beyond doubt.

7.3.2012	Notice issued
9.5.2012	Advocate Nanju Ganpathy appears without vakalatnama
3.7.12 and 3.8.12	Affidavits filed by K Radhakrishnan without authority documents
12.10.2012	Order passed directing production of authority documents
19.10.2012	Alleged board resolution dt 7.5.2012 filed This envisaged a Power of attorney which was not filed.   Expiry dated 31.3.2013
6.12.2012	CM 19370/2012 filed pointing out absence of vakalatnama
7.12.2012	Defective Vakalatnama filed without authority documents
14.12.2012	CM 19683/2012 filed pointing out vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was defective and invalid.
17.12.2012	New vakalatnama filed relying upon board resolution dated 7.5.2012
17.12.2012	Affidavit of K Radhakrishnan filed admitting power of attorney envisaged by board resolution dt 7.5.2012 was never executed.
17.12.2012	A new board resolution dt 17.12.2012 was filed which claimed to be a power of attorney without execution of a written instrument – this is contrary to law Expiry dated 16.12.2014
16.7.2013	Another vakalatnama filed by K Radhakrishnan relying upon board resolution dt 17.12.2012
19.7.2013	CM 10493 of 2013 filed
21.11.2014	CM 18969 of 2014 filed
4.12.2014	CM 20069 of 2014 filed
19, 20 and 22 Jan 2015	Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 went to new Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta & Judge P S Teji who wrongly recorded appearance of counsel for General Electric despite objection by petitioner. Petitioner indicated her intention to challenge these orders wrongly recording appearance of counsel for General Electric.
28.1.2015	Documents described in the court’s electronic filing system as “vakalatnama” were filed under the name of Nanju Ganpathy under diary no. 37442/2015 without providing copies to the petitioner. There was no vakaltnama.   These three documents were A power of attorney dt 8.12.2014 executed by Tejal Patil in favour of K Radhakrishnan which did not cover Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. This power of attorney referred to a board resolution dt 10.9.2014 which was not produced. A board resolution dt 10.12.2014 which was irrelevant and did not establish authority of K Radhakrishnan for the writ petition. A board resolution dt. 26.9.2013 which was irrelevant and did not establish authority of K Radhakrishnan for the writ petition. Reference was made in these documents to another board resolution dt 27.9.2012 which was not produced and appears to be irrelevant.

It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a legal entity or 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 in his favour duly executed by such party or by its duly authorised signatory. 

No Court has the power or discretion to allow a company to be represented in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and sufficient authority documents, has failed to establish his authority to represent the company, and who has produced invalid, false, forged and fabricated authority documents. The Court also has no power or discretion to permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and valid vakalatnama.

A judgment was issued in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 by the Bench of Judge Valmiki and Judge P.S. Teji on 3.3.2015 wrongfully dismissing the petition.

This judgment contained the following statement in paragraph 19 “In addition to the above applications there are various other applications filed by the petitioner effectively alleging that the lawyers of respondents no.1,6 and 7 and the attorney empowered by the Board’s resolutions of respondent nos. 1,6 and 7 have no right to represent these respondents though there have been filed on record the vakalatnamas, the power of attorneys by GE companies in favour of their officers, notifications and copies of the resolutions of the GE companies authorizing their officers to conduct the present and other litigations initiated by the present petitioner. These applications are as under:-“ The judgement then proceeded to merely reproduce the prayer clauses of CM 18642/2012, 19370/2012, 19683/2012, 522/2013, 10483/2013, CM 1882/2015.

This then is how the Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji have dealt with the applications pointing out that the authority documents filed for the General Electric respondents were invalid. Instead of hearing and deciding these applications on merits, this Bench prevented the petitioner from arguing, reserved judgment without a hearing, did not accord any hearing on the applications, and in its judgment failed to deal with the submissions of the petitioner, and with the material and evidence on record. It further included the statement in paragraph 19 which conveys the incorrect impression as if this issue was examined by the court. Note that this paragraph in the judgment does not examine whether these authority documents filed were invalid, defective, fraudulent or irrelevant as the petitioner had contended and as elaborate hereinabove, instead the paragraph merely records that these were filed. Without even hearing the petitioner and without referring to her submissions, paragraph 19 conveys the impression that K Radhakrishnan was duly authorised to represent the three General Electric respondents and that Nanju Ganpathy was authorized to appear for the General Electric respondents.

This can only be termed a cover-up.