Tuesday, 23 May 2017

Request to US President Donald Trump for political asylum for General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra being poisoned in India - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:57 PM
Subject: Request to US President Donald Trump for political asylum for General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra being poisoned in India - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831
To: pmosb <pmosb@gov.in>, Amit Shah <amitshah.bjp@gmail.com>, Sanjay Jain <sanjayjain.chamber@gmail.com>, "director@aiims.ac.in" <director@aiims.ac.in>, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@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, "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-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>, "emily.madder@siemens.com" <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>, "pk.malhotra@nic.in" <pk.malhotra@nic.in>, "ramakrishnan.r@nic.in" <ramakrishnan.r@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>, "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>, "webmaster@ambafrance-in.org" <webmaster@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>, "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>, "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, paul.murphy@usdoj.gov, sandra.glover@usdoj.gov, Jonah Spector <robert.spector@usdoj.gov>, christopher.connolly@usdoj.gov, joseph.cordaro@usdoj.gov, christopher.harwood@usdoj.gov, michael.byars@usdoj.gov, david.hale@usdoj.gov, rod.rosenstein@usdoj.gov, william.martin@usdoj.gov, richard.callahan@usdoj.gov, michael.cotter@usdoj.gov, paul.fishman@usdoj.gov, richard.hartunian@usdoj.gov, william.hochul@usdoj.gov, peter.smith@usdoj.gov, david.hickton@usdoj.gov, peter.neronha@usdoj.gov, jose.moreno@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, roland.busch@siemens.com, klaus.helmrich@siemens.com, daniel.desjardins@bombardier.com, james.buda@caterpillar.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, eric.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, david.brooks@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, eric.metz@ic.fbi.gov, alejandro.barbeito@ic.fbi.gov, cary.gleicher@ic.fbi.gov, paul.haertel@ic.fbi.gov, lazaro.andino@ic.fbi.gov, gabriel.ramirez@ic.fbi.gov, benjamin.walker@ic.fbi.gov, kirk.striebich@ic.fbi.gov, katherine.andrews@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, "Brown, Connally B. (MM) (FBI)" <connally.brown@ic.fbi.gov>, lawrence.futa@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.shaffer@ic.fbi.gov, Amit Sharma <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, Rajesh Mishra <attorney.rmishra@gmail.com>, csrhw@csrhw.com.cn, deepak verma <justicedverma@gmail.com>, dridzu@nic.in, "P.H. Parekh" <pravin.parekh@pravinparekh.com>, abhay kumar verma <akvadvocates@gmail.com>, Manan Mishra <manankumarmishra@gmail.com>, prabakaran.president.tnaa@gmail.com, vbhatt.adv@gmail.com, advajithts@gmail.com, Nilesh Kumar <agrnilesh73@gmail.com>, kunals777@yahoo.com, chairman@ses-surat.org, bhojcthakur@yahoo.com, raj mohan singh tanwar <rmsinghadvocate@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>, tusharmehta64@yahoo.com, Neeraj Kaul <neerajkishankaul@gmail.com>, president@bjp.org, fmo@nic.in, cabinet@nic.in, cabinetsy@nic.in, kk manan <kkmananadvocate@gmail.com>, kkmanan@gmail.com, secy-mci@nic.in, Delhi Medical Council <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, 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, suresh prabhu <spprabhu1@gmail.com>, rv.dhc@nic.in, jawahar@pralaw.in, prem@pralaw.in, Kent Walker <kwalker@google.com>, Eric Schmidt <eschmidt@google.com>, David Drummond <ddrummond@google.com>, Patrick Pichette <ppichette@google.com>, Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan@google.com>, Daniel Alegre <dalegre@google.com>, John Fitzpatrick <jfitzpatrick@google.com>, president@whitehouse.gov, zentrale@bundesnachrichtendienst.de, alokk.verma@nic.in, delpol@vsnl.com, ashish.sawkar@ic.fbi.gov, dgtihar@nic.in, dig-tihar@nic.in, tihar@nic.in, scj1-tihar@nic.in, scj2-tihar@nic.in, scj3-tihar@nic.in, scj4-tihar@nic.in, scj5-tihar@nic.in, scj6-tihar@nic.in, scj7-tihar@nic.in, scj8-tihar@nic.in, sdjr-tihar@nic.in, sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in, reg.rajpalarora@sci.nic.in, reg.rnnijhawan@sci.nic.in, Alex Dimitrief <alex.dimitrief@gmail.com>, bernabei@bernabeipllc.com, jzuckerman@zuckermanlaw.com, Kathleen Clark <kathleen@wustl.edu>, shippw@dcobc.org, academic@wcl.american.edu, driver@american.edu, dorsainv@american.edu, executive.office@dcbar.org, Maninder Singh <ms@singhmaninder.com>, Harsh Sharma BCD <harshrma@hotmail.com>, kkmanan <kkmanan@rediffmail.com>, Avtar Singh Malhotra <malhotra.avtar@gmail.com>, sho-vknorth-dl@nic.in, lggc.delhi@nic.in, nodp.delhi@nic.in, directorihbas@vsnl.net, Deepak Kumar <dmsihbas@gmail.com>, "Emergency Medicine, AIIMS" <emergencymediaiims@gmail.com>, naman_kvpy@rediff.com, anupam ranjan <dranupamranjan@gmail.com>, nishtha.aiims@gmail.com, shivampatel999@gmail.com, ms.aiims@aiims.edu, dean@aiims.edu, Rajesh sagar <rsagar29@gmail.com>, "Dr. Manju Mehta" <drmanju.mehta@gmail.com>, pratapsharan@yahoo.com, Nand Kumar <nandkm2001@gmail.com>, sgupta52001@yahoo.co.in, S K Sharma <sksharma.aiims@gmail.com>, sksmedicine.aiims@gmail.com, Prakash Singh <62prakashsingh@gmail.com>, ragesh rnair <rageshrnair@gmail.com>, drsanjeevsinha2002@yahoo.com, director.aiims@gmail.com, vsrinivas@aiims.ac.in, drambujroy@gmail.com, Ramakrishnan S <ramaaiims@gmail.com>, Saurabh Kumar Gupta <drsaurabhmd@gmail.com>, sunil verma <ksunilverma02@gmail.com>, Neeraj Parakh <neerajparakh@yahoo.com>, Rajiv Narang <r_narang@yahoo.com>, aiims aiims <drsandeepseth@hotmail.com>, rakeshyadav123@yahoo.com, nitishnaik@yahoo.co.in, G Karthikeyan <karthik2010@gmail.com>, Gautam Sharma <drsharmagautam@gmail.com>, Sandeep Singh <drssandeep@hotmail.com>, vkbahl2002@yahoo.com, anitasaxena@hotmail.com, kothariss@vsnl.com, balrambhargava@yahoo.com, drkcgoswami@rediffmail.com, Rajnish Juneja <rjuneja2@gmail.com>, Mahesh Misra <mcmisra@gmail.com>, misramahesh@hotmail.com, randeepg@hotmail.com, randeepguleria2002@yahoo.com, Dr G C Khilnani <gckhil@gmail.com>, anantmohan@yahoo.com, Karan Madan <drkaranmadan@gmail.com>, karanmadan@aiims.ac.in, vijayhadda@yahoo.com, gangaram@sgrh.com, "dcp.eastggn@hry.nic.in" <dcp.eastggn@hry.nic.in>, "dcp.westggn@hry.nic.in" <dcp.westggn@hry.nic.in>, dcp.trafficggn@hry.nic.in, "dcpcrime.grg@hry.nic.in" <dcpcrime.grg@hry.nic.in>, acpudyogviharggn-hry@nic.in, acptrafficggn-hry@nic.in, acpggnsdr-hry@nic.in, acpdlfggn-hry@nic.in, acpggncity-hry@nic.in, acppataudiggn-hry@nic.in, shoggnsdr-hry@nic.in, SHO Gurgaon Hardeep Singh Hooda DLF sector 29 GGN <shodlfggn-hry@nic.in>, shosushantlok-hry@nic.in, sho.dlfphse1ggn-hry@nic.in, shodlf2ggn-hry@nic.in, shosec56ggn-hry@nic.in, shosec40ggn-hry@nic.in, shoggncity-hry@nic.in, shosec10ggn-hry@nic.in, shocivillinesggn-hry@nic.in, "SHO Sector 5, Old Gurgaon Police Department, Haryana" <shosec5oldggn-hry@nic.in>, shorajendrapark-hry@nic.in, shoudyogvihar-hry@nic.in, shosec17-hry@nic.in, shopalamvihar-hry@nic.in, shobadshahpur-hry@nic.in, shosohna-hry@nic.in, shobhondsi-hry@nic.in, shopataudi-hry@nic.in, shofarrukhnagar-hry@nic.in, shomanesar-hry@nic.in, shobilaspur-hry@nic.in, shokhrkhidaula-hry@nic.in, showomenpsgn-hry@gov.in, itcellggn-hry@nic.in, Embassy of Portugal in New Delhi <embassy@portugal-india.com>, naresh.trehan@medanta.org, "kirti_uppal@yahoo.com" <kirti_uppal@yahoo.com>, "rsethi@snrlaw.in" <rsethi@snrlaw.in>, rameshsingh66@gmail.com, pravin@anandandanand.com, cyril.shroff@cyrilshroff.com, Gourab Banerji <gkbanerji@gmail.com>, "dushyantdave@gmail.com" <dushyantdave@gmail.com>, EthicsAndCompliance@starbucks.com, sumi.ghosh@starbucks.com, World YWCA <worldoffice@worldywca.org>, Suhel.Daud@ic.fbi.gov, Suhel D <suhel.daud@gmail.com>, rajiv luthra <rajiv@luthra.com>, dcp-igiairport-dl@nic.in, sho.igiairport@delhipolice.gov.in, cp.amulyapatnaik@delhipolice.gov.in, Scba India <scbaec@gmail.com>, gau123@hotmail.com, Gaurav Bhatia <grv.bhatia@gmail.com>, Rupinder Suri <suri.rupinder@gmail.com>, cm@maharashtra.gov.in, acs.home@maharashtra.gov.in, rg-bhc@nic.in, jeff.sessions@usdoj.gov, sho-cp-dl@nic.in, cmdelhi@nic.in, swatidcw@gmail.com, customercare@tatastarbucks.com, pallavi.shroff@amsshardul.com, shardul.shroff@amsshardul.com, Samrat Nigam <samrat.nigam@gmail.com>, Amarjit Singh Chandhiok <achandhiok@gmail.com>, pvkapur@kapurlaw.com, william.cowan@ge.com, Rebecca John <rebeccamammen@gmail.com>, Saurabh Kirpal <saurabhkirpal@hotmail.com>, darpan.wadhwa@gmail.com, ndixit@snrlaw.in, aknigamoffice@gmail.com, Sid Luthra <sidluthra@gmail.com>, sanjivsenoffice@gmail.com, Abhishek Manu Singhvi <drams59@gmail.com>, amit.sibal@amitsibal.com, shyelt@yahoo.com, info@ivankatrump.com, india@mofa.go.kr, consular2@newdelhi.mfa.gov.il, dcm@mumbai.mfa.gov.il, info@newdelhi.mfa.gov.il
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>


Message for US President Donald Trump


Dear President Donald Trump, 

I am a General Electric Company whistleblower in India who is being acutely and chronically poisoned. The local police and intelligence agencies are being used by GE to target me. 

Please read more about me and my complaints about GE below.

My life is in great and imminent danger, I request that you grant me political asylum in the United States so that I can be protected and the corruption, forgery, FCPA violations, fraud and obstruction of justice by GE executives and lawyers can be investigated and dealt with in accordance with law. My complaints and evidence show multiple instances of violations of US law by GE executives and on both US and Indian soil. GE executives are also guilty of obstruction of justice under US law. 

Last night and again this morning, I was again targeted with acrid and acidic chemical fumes, highly poisonous chemical fumes, nerve agents and anesthetic agents when I was asleep in my car. (Emails sent last night are reproduced below.) This was attempted murder. The intent is to cause death by causing airway obstruction and paralysis of the heart muscles. I woke up unable to breathe 3-4 times. At another point, my airways and throat closed because of some poisonous gas released close to me.

I am under surveillance and am being followed and targeted 24/7. 


Right now. I am sitting at a Starbucks in Ambience Mall in Vasant Kunj and am again being targeted with highly poisonous chemicals. I was targeted with chemicals in Ambience Mall yesterday also. 

Jeffrey Immelt, John Flannery and Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company are responsible for me being poisoned. Persons within the Modi administration and the BJP who are having me targeted include Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Arun Jaitley, Suresh Prabhu and Ajit Doval. Powerful former ministers/ officials having me targeted include Manmohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia. Pratyush Kumar (ex-GE) and now heading Boeing in India is also having me targeted. GE's lawyers in India Zia Mody and her father Soli J Sorabjee (a former Attorney General of India) are also responsible for having me poisoned. 

The intent is to prevent me from pursuing my corruption and fraud complaints against GE in the Supreme Court of India.

Please also issue instructions to the New Delhi US Embassy and to local FBI Attache Ashish Sawkar to ensure that I am not harmed further in any manner until I can obtain political asylum in the United States. 

Seema Sapra 
General Electric Company whistleblower

p.s.

My car has been deliberately blocked by another car outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court today.
The licence no. is DL 8CP 6033.
Pictures attached.
My car locks have also been tampered with recently while my car was parked outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court. Opening the driver door with the key is now not opening the locks of the other three doors and similarly pushing down the lock on the driver door is not locking the three other doors. The locks on the left-hand side doors were already chopped off earlier and only stubs are left.  (My car has been repeatedly and systematically vandalized). The left front door cannot be opened from the outside even if the lock is unlocked. It can only be opened from the inside. So now I can unlock the car only from the driver door and then I have to unlock and lock all the other three doors manually.

Attached are pictures men being used to stalk and target me at Starbucks in Ambience Mall.

Also attached are pictures of persons used to target me including with poisonous chemicals in the Delhi High Court.

I am being targeted when I use the washroom in the Delhi High Court in the morning. Men including cleaning staff are being used to spray chemicals underneath the washroom door when I am inside. Pictures of men involved are attached. Today, one of them was told by the lawyer (see Picture) to loudly shout in my presence – Paagal aaa gayi (The mad woman is here). He was shouting this outside the washroom when I was inside and continued to shout this until I left the building and then he was shouting this from a window when I was walking away from the building.  This man and another man sprayed poisonous chemicals under the washroom door on 19 May 2017. Pictures taken of them that day are attached.

All pictures are attached using Google drive.

 
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​


A short summary of my whistleblower complaints against GE is presented below. A copy of Civil Application No. 7197 of 2013 filed before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is attached using Google drive. A copy of my contempt appeal pending before the Supreme Court of India is also attached. 

 ​



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra being poisoned with nerve agents, anesthetic agents, poisonous chemicals and acrid and acidic chemical fumes - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831
To: "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, hschultz <hschultz@starbucks.com>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in" <sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in>, "sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in" <sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in>, "chairmanoffice@sec.gov" <chairmanoffice@sec.gov>, "Suhel.Daud@ic.fbi.gov" <Suhel.Daud@ic.fbi.gov>, "president@whitehouse.gov" <president@whitehouse.gov>, "sho-defenceclny-dl@nic.in" <sho-defenceclny-dl@nic.in>, "sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in" <sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in>, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, "sumi.ghosh@starbucks.com" <sumi.ghosh@starbucks.com>, "sho-cp-dl@nic.in" <sho-cp-dl@nic.in>, "sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in" <sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in>, "ashish.sawkar@ic.fbi.gov" <ashish.sawkar@ic.fbi.gov>, "cp.amulyapatnaik@delhipolice.gov.in" <cp.amulyapatnaik@delhipolice.gov.in>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.com>, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in" <sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "sho-crpark-dl@nic.in" <sho-crpark-dl@nic.in>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in" <sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in>, "sho-gk-dl@nic.in" <sho-gk-dl@nic.in>, "EthicsAndCompliance@starbucks.com" <EthicsAndCompliance@starbucks.com>, "sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in" <sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in>, Ashish Sawkar <ashish.sawkar@gmail.com>, "cp.ggn@hry.nic.in" <cp.ggn@hry.nic.in>
Cc: Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>


It is 4,20 am. I am sleeping in my car parked outside Gate 8 of the Delhi High Court. 

I am being targeted with highly poisonous chemical fumes/ gas and nerve agents and some kind of anesthetic gaseous fumes and acidic and acrid fumes. 

This is clearly attempted murder. Exposing a sleeping individual to poisonous gases/fumes while asleep is intended to cause death.

Jeffrey Immelt and Alexander Dimitref of General Electric Company are responsible for me being poisoned. They want me dead and the intent is for the Police to find my dead or unconscious body in my car and then cover-up using corrupted doctors. 

The CCTV records from both the street and from inside the Delhi High Court must be preserved as evidence.

Two uniformed policemen on a motorbike went past my car at around 12 am. .

Seema Sapra
General Electric Company whistleblower


On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:
Man being used to parade around my car. See pics. Tells me he lives in the dhobhi ghat in Bapa Nagar. Does not even know what house no. he lives in.

Then he goes and talks to some men at gate 9 of the Delhi High Court.

I am being targeted with highly poisonous chemical fumes.

Seema Sapra
General Electric Company whistleblower

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:
It is 11.11 pm. I am sleeping in my car parked outside Gate 8 of the Delhi High Court. 

I am being targeted with highly poisonous chemical fumes/ gas and nerve agents and some kind of anesthetic gaseous fumes and acidic and acrid fumes. 

This is being done from inside the boundary wall of the Delhi High Court.

My car is also being circled by persons on motorbikes and in cars/ vans/ taxis who are being used to target me. Men on foot are also being used to target and harass me.

Men living in the staff quarters of C1/49 have been used to target me with poisonous chemical fumes. C1/49 is occupied by IB officer M K Sinha who is close to Manmohan Singh.

This is clearly attempted murder. Exposing a sleeping individual to poisonous gases/fumes while asleep is intended to cause death.

Jeffrey Immelt and Alexander Dimitref of General Electric Company are responsible for me being poisoned. They want me dead and the intent is for the Police to find my dead or unconscious body in my car and then cover-up using corrupted doctors. 

The CCTV records from both the street and from inside the Delhi High Court must be preserved as evidence.

A policeman in plain clothes on a motorbike went past my car. .

Seema Sapra
General Electric Company whistleblower



Whistleblower complaints made by the Petitioner, Seema Sapra involving General Electric Company, the Railway Ministry and the Planning Commission

GE extensively lobbied (and used the US Government to lobby) then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, then Rail Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, and Planning Commission Chief Montek Singh Ahluwalia for the creation of the Marhowra rail locomotive factory Project which was specifically tailor-made for GE.
  The evidence includes –
Public admission by Mr. John Rice, Vice Chairman of General Electric Company during an investor meeting on February 10, 2009

Statement by General Electric Chairman Jeffrey Immelt quoted in a November 6, 2010 Bloomberg news story

Six US Embassy cables released by Wikileaks -
26 December 2006, US Embassy New Delhi - Cable reference id: #06NEWDELHI8511
Senator Specter Meeting With P.m. Singh
28 Sep 2007, US Embassy New Delhi - Cable reference id: #07NEWDELHI4419
New Delhi Weekly Econ Office Highlights For September 24-28, 2007
11 Dec 2007, US Embassy New Delhi - Cable reference id: #07NEWDELHI5280
Railway Minister Lalu Reaffirms Support For Nuclear Deal But Wants Political Consensus
3 Oct 2008, US Embassy New Delhi - Cable reference id: #08NEWDELHI2645
New Delhi Weekly Econ Office Highlights For The Week Of September 29 To October 3, 2008
"TWO LARGE RAILWAY PROJECTS WITH US INVOLVEMENT CHUGGING FORWARD
31 Oct 2008, US Embassy New Delhi - Cable reference id: #08NEWDELHI2826
New Delhi Weekly Econ Office Highlights For The Week Of October 27 To October 31, 2008
"JBIC TO FUND THE WESTERN DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR
11 Jun 2009, US Embassy New Delhi - Cable reference id: #09NEWDELHI1211
Fs Menon And U/s Burns Discuss New Strategic Dialogue   Architecture And Bilateral Issues

GE committed a corrupt practice under the 2008 tender for the Marhowra Project by acquiring draft tender RFP documents for the tender before these were officially released by the Railway Ministry.
  Emails placed on record dated 9 March 2010 (authored by Ruby Anand, ex-GE) and 1 August 2008 (authored by Praveena Yagnambhat, GE) with file attachments establish that GE had obtained the draft tender RFP documents for the 2008 Marhowra tender before 1 August 2008 even though these   documents were publicly released by the Railway Ministry and shared with the bidders only on 22 September 2008.

GE committed a corrupt practice under the 2008 tender for the Marhowra Project by using the services of Railway Ministry official Shakeel Ahmed to vet and   approve its RFQ application documents before these were submitted to the Railway Ministry.
  This was disclosed to the petitioner during a telephone conversation in June/ July 2010 by US GE employee (Mr Steve Seip) and a US based lawyer (Mr James Winget) for General Electric. Mr Shakeel Ahmeds's corrupt relationship and dealings with GE are also recorded in an internal GE email   dated 12 July 2010 (placed on record) authored by then GE executive Pratyush Kumar.

GE committed a corrupt practice under the 2008 tender for the Marhowra Project by lobbying for award of the tender even though it was the single bidder and had made a mistake in its financial bid. GE was in touch with Montek Singh Ahluwalia and with Ronen Sen, then Indian Ambassador to the US and other unknown Indian officials and public servants for this purpose.
  The Petitioner has read internal General Electric emails from 23 Feb 2009 that record that senior GE executives including Mr John Rice (Vice Chairman of General Electric Company) and Mr Karan Bhatia (Legal Counsel at General Electric Company for International Law and Policy) discussed speaking with Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Ronen Sen about facilitating the award of the 2008 Marhowra tender to GE.
This lobbying was also admitted by Alexander Dimitrief of GE in his letter to the Petitioner dated 3 February 2011.   
GE pressurized and lobbied the Government of India to award the Marhowra Project to GE in 2008-2009.
  The Petitioner has read internal General Electric emails from 23 Feb 2009 that record that senior GE executives including Mr John Rice (Vice Chairman of General Electric Company) and Mr Karan Bhatia (Legal Counsel at General Electric Company for International Law and Policy) discussed speaking with Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Ronen Sen about facilitating the award of the 2008 Marhowra tender to GE.

This lobbying was also admitted by Alexander Dimitrief of GE in his letter to the Petitioner dated 3 February 2011.  
After the Cabinet cancelled the 2008 Marhowra Project tender in 2009 and converted the Project into a Railway departmental venture, GE extensively lobbied the Government of India and the Railway Ministry in 2009 and 2010 to have the Marhowra Project again converted into a PPP Project structured as a JV with a private entity being the principle supplier and manufacturer.
  Admitted in internal GE emails including in email dated 12 July 2010 authored by Pratyush Kumar from GE.
GE committed a corrupt practice under the 2010 tender for the Marhowra Project by engaging the services of Vinod Sharma, a retired Railway Ministry official who had acted as a PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) advisor to the Railway Ministry for the 2008 tender for the Marhowra Project and for the initial planning and formulation of the Project. GE thereby gained access to confidential information of the Railway Ministry about the Project and tender.
  Vinod Sharma, an ex-Railway official acted as advisor to the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and the 2008 Marhowra tender as part of a PwC team.
Vinod Sharma was a frequent visitor to the GE office in 2010. He reviewed GE's RFQ documents for the 2010 Madhepura and 2010 Marhowra   tenders. He accompanied GE executives to meetings with Railway Ministry officials. Internal GE emails corroborate this including GE email dated 5 July 2010.
In an affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court purportedly on behalf of General Electric, it is admitted that GE entered into a written contract with Mr Vinod Sharma, through his "company" "Essvee Consultants" effective from 11 Aug 2009. However, there exists no company registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs having the name "Essvee Consultants".
Petitioner relies upon Railway Ministry document titled "Annexture_1_4.pdf" and downloaded from http://indianrailways.gov.in
/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/
O&M/Annexture_1_4.pdf
Petitioner relies upon ADB document from November 2008 numbered T A 4998 (IND): Preparing the Railway Sector Investment Program Final Report – Efficiency Improvement. This document includes Mr. Vinod Sharma's name as a representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd
Petitioner relies upon news report dated 3 October 2008 published by Live Mint.
Mr Vinod Sharma introduced himself to the Petitioner in GE's office in 2010 as a PwC consultant and handed over a PwC business card. In July 2010, Vinod Sharma indicated before the petitioner that he had been involved in reviewing GE's 2008 Marhowra RFQ bid for the Railway Ministry.
Attempted cover-up by Railway Ministry before the Delhi High Court involving perjury, false and evasive affidavits, fabrication/ forgery of false documents as part of conspiracy to protect GE.
The Railway Ministry first filed a perjurious affidavit dated 2 July 2012 attempting to mislead the Court by claiming that Vinod Sharma did not advise the Railway Ministry on the 2010 Marhowra tender when the bar arose from his   having advised on the Marhowra Project.
In its affidavit dated 14 January 2013, the Ministry of Railways later actually produced two patently fabricated letters which were used to make a false statement in the affidavit that Vinod Sharma did not advise the Ministry on the Marhowra Rail Project.
Fabricated letter dated 27.12.2012 addressed to Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RITES Ltd. from G.K. Gupta, Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project) Railway Board filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013.
Fabricated letter dated 7.1.2013 addressed to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.) Railway Board from Anil Vij, GGM/RW&IE at RITES filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013
Thus when called upon by the Delhi High Court to answer as to whether Vinod Sharma had advised the Ministry of Railways as part of the PwC team for preparation of  bid documents and for bid evaluation for the Marhowra Project and tender in 2008, officials of the Railway Ministry and RITES fabricated letters dated 27.12.2012 and 7.1.2013 which referred not to the relevant 2008 contract with PwC but to an entirely different, earlier and irrelevant contract dated 6.3.2007 and this letter was then used to create false evidence by way of the RITES reply dated 7.1.2013 which was in turn used by the Railway Ministry to lie on oath in the affidavit that Vinod Sharma had not advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project.

General Electric violated Clause 2.2.1 (d) [conflict of interest],  Clause 4.1.3 (a) [corrupt practice] and Clause 4.1.3 d) [undesirable practice] of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ. 
As a result, General Electric was liable to be not only disqualified under the 2010 Marhowra RFQ but also liable to be blacklisted from all Railway Ministry Projects for a period of two years under Clause 4.1.1 and Clause 4.1.2 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ respectively

GE acting in concert with corrupt officials from the Planning Commission and the Railway Ministry was responsible for alteration of the eligibility criteria for the Marhowra Project after the 2008 tender was cancelled. The new eligibility criteria for the 2010 tender for the Marhowra Project were tailored to ensure that only two US suppliers qualified in 2010– GE and EMD.
  The petitioner relies upon the 2008 and 2010 RFQs for the Marhowra Project and on internal Railway Ministry and Planning Commission records.
GE acting in concert with corrupt officials from the Planning Commission and the Railway Ministry was responsible for alteration of the eligibility criteria for the Madhepura Project after the 2008 tender was cancelled. The new eligibility criteria for the 2010 tender for the Madhepura Project were tailored to ensure that GE would qualify and be short-listed even though GE does not even manufacture electric locomotives.
  A tender for the same project (electric locomotive factory at Madhepura) was floated in 2008-2009. Under the terms of the 2008 RFQ, GE was ineligible for this Project and consequently it did not participate in the 2008/ 2009 tender. Technical bids were submitted by five companies in 2008 for this Project. These were Alstom (France), Bombardier (Germany), Siemens (Germany), a consortium comprising China-based CSR Zhuzhou Electric Loco Works and Monnet International, and a Japanese consortium comprising Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and Toshiba. The Ministry of Railways short listed three bidders in 2008 – Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens. The 2008/2009 tender was eventually cancelled in February 2009.

A new tender for the same project (electric locomotive factory at Madhepura) was floated in 2010. The eligibility criteria were modified/ diluted from that prescribed in the 2008 RFQ and the requirement for previous experience in manufacture/ supply/ maintenance of electric locomotives that was present in the 2008 RFQ was left out in 2010. These changes/ dilutions benefited only one party, General Electric and allowed General Electric to participate in this tender even though it does not manufacture electric locomotives or even possess the technology to manufacture electric locomotives. At the same time, new conditions were   inserted in the 2010 Madhepura RFQ aimed at disqualifying the Chinese and Japanese competition.
Petitioner has placed on record two McKinsey documents titled "18052010 Assessing Loco Opportunity v4.ppt" dated May 18, 2010 and "20100522_Working session_V04.ppt" dated May 22, 2010.  These documents establish that General Electric does not manufacture electric locomotives and does not possess the technology to manufacture electric locomotives.
The changes introduced into the eligibility criteria for the Madhepura project in the 2010 RFQ resulted in the anomalous situation where experienced manufacturers of electric locomotives with licensed technology were barred from participation in the tender; whereas General Electric which does not manufacture electric locomotives, had no recent experience or expertise in the manufacture of such locomotives, and does not possess the technology (whether self-developed or licensed) to manufacture electric locomotives, was not only rendered eligible under the tailored eligibility criteria in the 2010 Madhepura RFQ but was also short-listed. The Chinese and Japanese consortia who bid for this project in 2008 were outright disqualified. The cumulative effect of the modifications to the eligibility conditions introduced into the 2010 Madhepura RFQ was that only General Electric, Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier were able to meet these conditions. No existing Indian manufacturer (for example BHEL) was eligible.

GE acting in concert with corrupt officials from the Planning Commission and the Railway Ministry entered into and executed a criminal conspiracy to corruptly and clandestinely alter the Cabinet approved terms and conditions of the Marhowra Project tender in 2010. This was achieved by entering into a criminal conspiracy with officers in the Electric Division of the Railway Ministry whereby (i) the eligibility criteria of the 2010 Madhepura tender were altered to allow GE to bid even though GE does not manufacture electric locomotives; (ii) GE executives with the assistance of McKinsey executives lobbied officials from the electric division of the Railway Ministry to alter the terms and conditions for the award of the Madhepura Project to benefit the bidder at the increased financial cost of the Railway Ministry; (iii) GE then lobbied Railway Ministry and Planning Commission officials for   incorporation of these new terms beneficial to the bidder into the terms and conditions for award of the Marhowra tender; (iv) the draft bid documents for the 2010 Marhowra tender were thereby revised in 2010 intending to cause a financial loss of Rs.16,405 crores to the Railway Ministry and a concomitant gain to the Bidder. This criminal conspiracy which was partially executed was defeated only because the petitioner filed Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 in the Delhi High Court.
  The Petitioner relies upon –

The Pioneer newspaper news report on March 19, 2012 titled "US loco giant pits Montek against planners".

Outlook India news-feature in its April 2, 2012 issue titled "The Great Railway Bazaar".

Participation by GE in the 2010 Madhepura tender when it does not manufacture electric locomotives and after GE Chairman Jeff Immelt had decided that GE would not participate in this project.

Towards the end of May 2010 and the first two weeks of June 2010, General Electric engaged a team of McKinsey consultants who were working out of General Electric's office in New Delhi. McKinsey was ostensibly engaged to evaluate   the Madhepura opportunity for General Electric. These McKinsey consultants and General Electric executives had several extensive meetings with Railway Ministry officials during this time. General Electric used these consultants to lobby for changes to the bidding documents for the Diesel and Electric Locomotive Tenders of the Indian Railways. Such contact between a Bidder and its agents with Railway Ministry officials and such lobbying was expressly prohibited under the Diesel and Electric Locomotive tender documents and amounted to a corrupt practice.

Internal GE email evidencing corruption and illegal lobbying sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar to Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli, Mr. David Tucker, Mr. Brett Begole, Mr. Monish Patolawala, Mr. Joel Berdine, Mr. Russell Stokes, Ms. Tara Plimpton, Mr. Cyrille Petit, Mr John Flannery, Ms Tammy Gromacki, Mr Eric Ducharme, Mr.   Karan Bhatia, and Mr. Rich Herold (all from GE) on June 7, 2010.

Internal GE email evidencing corruption and illegal lobbying sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar on July 6, 2010 to Mr. Lorenzo Simonelli, Mr. David Tucker, Mr Karan Bhatia, Mr Ashfaq Nainar, Mr Brett BeGole, Mr Richard Herold, Mr Monish Patolawala anf Mr James Gerson (all from GE).

Internal GE email evidencing corruption and illegal lobbying sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar on July 12, 2010 to James Gerson, Steve Seip, Kamal Shivpuri, Joanne Kleinhanz, Gina Trombley, Robert Parisi, Ashfaq Nainar, Ramesh Mathur, Kevin Randall, James Winget, Randy Biletnikoff, Christopher Morgen, Michael Lafferty, Paul Zeigler, Alan Hamilton, Vageesh Patil, Deepak Adlakha, Puneet Mahajan, Alpna Khera, Atulya Dubere, Amol Nagar, Praveena Yagnambhat, Ed Hall, Gaurav Negi, Ashish Malhotra, Himali Arora (all from GE) and to the petitioner. This email was copied to Lorenzo Simonelli, David Tucker, Brett BeGole, Russell Stokes, Monish Patolawala, Joel Berdine, Tara Plimpton, Eric Ducharme, John Flannery, Tammy Gromacki, Alexander Artman, Karan Bhatia and Richard Herold (all from GE).  The subject of this email was "Draft Workplan for D-Loco India Bid" and it contained an attachment "India D-Loco Update 12 Jul 10 V2.ppt".

GE executives were in unauthorized contact with Railway Ministry officials in connection with the 2010 Madhepura tender.
  Towards the end of May 2010 and the first two weeks of June 2010, General Electric engaged a team of McKinsey consultants who were working out of General Electric's office in New Delhi. McKinsey was ostensibly engaged to evaluate   the Madhepura opportunity for General Electric. These McKinsey consultants and General Electric executives had several extensive meetings with Railway Ministry officials during this time. General Electric used these consultants to lobby for changes to the bidding documents for the Diesel and Electric Locomotive Tenders of the Indian Railways. Such contact between a Bidder and its agents with Railway Ministry officials and such lobbying was expressly prohibited under the Diesel and Electric Locomotive tender documents and amounted to a corrupt practice.

GE committed a corrupt practice when Pratyush Kumar, a senior GE executive handling GE's participation in the Railway Ministry's tenders secretly met Railway Ministry official Ved Mani Tiwari in the GE office on a public holiday in June 2010. Ved Mani Tiwari was handling the Madhepura Project tender.
  In June 2010, the petitioner was present in the GE AIFACS office on a mid-week holiday working. The McKinsey team was also present working on their assignment. Mr. Pratyush Kumar arrived at the General Electric office around the late afternoon (sometime after around 4 pm) that day. Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari (a Railway Ministry official) came to the General Electric office to meet Pratyush Kumar and the McKinsey team. Mr Anupam Agarwal (the McKinsey engagement manager), Mr Pratyush Kumar and Mr Ved Mani Tiwari all had a meeting in Mr Pratyush Kumar's office cabin. The petitioner is a witness to the fact of this meeting having taken place. The exact date of this visit and meeting can be verified. It was a mid-week government holiday sometime in the first half of June 2010. This was not an official Railway Ministry meeting. The petitioner has first-hand knowledge of this meeting having taken place. She was present and saw the meeting taking place through the glass doors of Mr Pratyush Kumar's cabin in the GE AIFACS office. In fact, the Petitioner had been present in Mr Pratyush Kumar's office and was asked by him to leave the office after Mr Pratyush Kumar, Mr Ved Mani Tiwari and Mr Anupam Agarwal (McKinsey) had assembled therein for this meeting.

GE committed a corrupt practice in the 2010 Madhepura tender in the RFQ stage when it directly emailed additional documents and information to Railway Ministry official Ved Mani Tiwari in support of its RFQ application two days after the due date for submission of bids. The Railway Ministry corruptly accepted these documents supplied clandestinely by GE and pre-qualified GE.
  Email placed on record sent by Mr Ramesh Mathur GE to Mr Ved Mani Tiwari on May 20, 2011.
GE submitted a forged (tampered) customer certificate to the Railway Ministry on 12 July 2010 along with its pre-qualification   application (RFQ stage) for the 2010 tender for the Marhowra Project. This was the customer certificate for Kazakhstan Railway.
  General Electric's technical bid for the 2010 Marhowra tender submitted on July 12, 2010 was also tainted because a forged/ tampered document has been submitted to the Government of India with this bid. General Electric employees illegally and without authorization "forward-dated" an undated customer certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railways and submitted this tampered/ forged document to the Indian Railways on July 12, 2010 as part of Respondent 7's  request for prequalification for the multi-billion dollar Diesel Locomotives Tender.

GE acting in concert with corrupt officials from the Planning Commission and the Railway Ministry was responsible for alteration of the RFQ document for the 2010 Marhowra tender with the sole purpose to enable GE to avoid making full declarations pertaining to eligibility of bidders for PPP Projects as prescribed in the 'Guidelines for qualification of Bidders seeking to acquire stakes in Public Sector Enterprises through the process of disinvestment' dated 13 July 2001 issued by the Department of Disinvestment. Therefore the 2010 Marhowra RFQ issued by the Railway Ministry was non-compliant with these guidelines. GE's subsequent pre-qualification by the Railway Ministry under the 2010 Marhowra RFQ was also non-compliant with these guidelines.
  The General Electric bidding entity for both the Madhepura and Marhowra tenders, GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited is a shell company and only met the financial and technical eligibility conditions in the Marhowra and Madhepura RFQs by using the parent company, General Electric Company as its "Associate".
Illegal modifications were made by the Railway Ministry (with the collusion of corrupt officials from the Planning Commission and GE excutives) to the 2010 RFQ for the proposed diesel locomotive factory with intent to dilute the disclosure requirements mandated by the Government of India Guidelines for qualification of Bidders seeking to acquire stakes in Public Sector Enterprises through the process of disinvestment bearing Office Memorandum No. 6/4/2001DDII and dated July 13, 2001. These modifications were made at the behest of General Electric and were intended to assist GE to qualify without having to comply with the said GOI guidelines. General Electric failed to comply with these guidelines in both the 2010 Marhowra and the 2010 Madhepura tenders. 
Both the 2010 RFQs (and the 2008 RFQs as well) for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra and the proposed electric locomotive factory at Madhepura, required the Bidders to comply with and give undertakings and certifications in accordance with the Government of India Guidelines. Neither General Electric Co., nor its principal Indian subsidiary carrying on business in India (GE India Industrial Private Limited), were in a position to provide the certifications and disclosures required by the Government of India guidelines. General Electric Company therefore fronted a shell company as the Bidder for both the 2010 tenders. This shell company, GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited had not executed any contracts and therefore did not need to make any disclosures pertaining to convictions/ indictments/ adverse orders/ charge-sheets or pending investigations by a regulatory authority. General Electric Company used GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited, a shell company, to front as the applicant for these locomotive tenders because neither General Electric Co. nor GE India Industrial Private Limited were able or willing to provide the certifications and disclosures required by the RFQs and the Government of India Guidelines. 

Despite using GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited as the applicant for the impugned tenders, GE still found it difficult to provide these certifications because the Government of India Guidelines require certifications on behalf of the Bidder and its sister concerns. These guidelines also require disclosure of investigations by regulatory authorities against the Bidder or its sister concerns or against its CEO or any of its Directors/ Managers/ employees. The disclosure required covers full details of such investigation including the name of the investigating agency, the charge/ offence for which the investigation has been launched, name and designation of persons against whom the investigation has been launched and other relevant information to the satisfaction of the Government.

To overcome this hurdle, General Electric managed to get   the language of the 2010 RFQ for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra changed and diluted. A comparison of the corresponding clauses in the 2010 Marhowra RFQ and the 2010 Madhepura RFQ shows how the language of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ was tailored to enable General Electric to avoid   disclosing any convictions/ indictments/ adverse orders/ charge-sheets or pending investigations by a regulatory authority on behalf of the Associates/ sister concerns of the Bidder and their CEO or Directors/ Managers/ employees.
A comparison of the relevant paragraphs from the three RFQs - the 2008 Madhepura RFQ, the 2010 Madhepura RFQ, and the 2010 Marhowra RFQ exhibits a curious pattern of tightening and dilution of language pertaining to the requirements imposed by the above-discussed Government of India guidelines. The comparison exposes a pattern of arbitrary modification of language from one RFQ to another. It is submitted not only were these arbitrary modifications that cannot be justified, but it cannot be a mere   coincidence that the modifications introduced suited General Electric's requirements and strategy perfectly and enabled General Electric to avoid making disclosures that it was unable or unwilling to even though these disclosures were mandated by the applicable GOI guidelines. The relevant disclosure requirements in the 2010 Marhowra RFQ were diluted at the instance of General Electric and because of prohibited lobbying of Indian Railways and Planning Commission officials by General Electric executives, employees and agents and pursuant to corrupt dealings between Indian Railways and Planning Commission officials and General Electric. These unjustifiable and unlawful changes to the 2010 Marhowra RFQ language violate (i) the GOI Guidelines for qualification of Bidders seeking to acquire stakes in Public Sector Enterprises through the process of disinvestment issued vide Office Memorandum No. 6/4/2001DDII dated July 13, 2001; (ii) the GOI Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance (F.No. 24(1)/PF.II/07) titled 'Guidelines for Pre-Qualification of Bidders for PPP Projects'; and (iii) the Government   of India endorsed and recommended model RFQ.
A comparison of relevant paragraphs setting out disclosure requirements in the 2008 Madhepura RFQ, the 2010 Madhepura RFQ, and the 2010 Marhowra RFQ was on record before the Delhi High Court.
In addition, the dilution of the disclosure/ certification requirements in the 2010 Marhowra RFQ in violation of the Government of India guidelines dated July 13, 2001 rendered Global RFQ No. 2010/ME(Proj)/4/ Marhoura / the invitation to bid issued by the Ministry of Railways unlawful, arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be quashed.
As submitted, the 2010 RFQ for the proposed Marhowra diesel locomotive factory also did not comply with the GOI 'Guidelines for qualification of Bidders seeking to acquire stakes in Public Sector Enterprises through the process of disinvestment'. The disclosure/ certification requirements prescribed in this RFQ were a diluted version of the disclosure/ certification requirements prescribed by the GOI disclosure guidelines. This dilution was clearly intended to benefit General Electric. The 2010 Marhowra RFQ was ultra vires and violative of the GOI disclosure guidelines as it omitted disclosures/ certifications for "Associates" of the Bidder. As a result, General Electric avoided making disclosures for General Electric Company and the de-facto   bidder by using a shell company, GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited as the applicant. GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited being a shell company, and having never manufactured or supplied locomotives or any other product for that matter, had a clean slate and therefore made no disclosures in its technical bid for the 2010 Marhowra RFQ submitted on July 12, 2010.  This failure by General Electric to make disclosures about the de-facto and real Bidder (General Electric Company) violated the GOI disclosure guidelines (Guidelines for qualification of Bidders seeking to acquire stakes in Public Sector Enterprises through the process of disinvestment).
The 2010 Marhowra RFQ and the 2010 Madhepura RFQ were in violation of the Government of India Guidelines dated July 13, 2001 and also in violation of the Ministry of Finance Guidelines for Pre-qualification of Bidders for PPP Projects dated December 5, 2007 and with office memorandum No. F.No. 24(1)/PF.II/07 and were therefore illegal, ultravires and liable to be quashed/ scrapped.

GE transferred bribes to Indian politicians and Indian Government officials through a third party named Aartech Consultants India Private Limited in connection with the Marhowra and Madhepura Projects.
   
GE used a shell company GE Global Sourcing India Private   Limited to bid for the Marhowra Project in the 2008, 2010 and 2013 tenders.
   
GE used a shell company GE Global Sourcing India Private   Limited to bid for the Madhepura Project in the 2010 and 2013 tenders.
   


Read below on how the Railway Ministry fabricated false documents and evidence (and placed it on the court record of Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 in the Delhi High Court) to cover up corruption by General Electric Company. This deals with the issue of PricewaterhouseCoopers and Vinod Sharma.
General Electric engaged in a proscribed corrupt and undesirable practice by using the advisory and lobbying services of one Vinod Sharma for its bids for the 2010 Marhowra and Madhepura tenders and in doing so violated Clause 2.2.1 (d), Clause 4.1.3 a) and Clause 4.1.3 d) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ and was accordingly liable to be disqualified and blacklisted under Clause 4.1.2. This also amounted to a violation of the conflict of interest clause in the RFQ which expressly   prohibited such conduct.  
Vinod Sharma is a retired Indian Railways official who after retirement worked with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). PwC was appointed as consultant by the Railway Ministry in 2008 to prepare the bid documents for the Marhowra Project and to assist in bid evaluation and Vinod Sharma was part of the PwC team. General Electric was one of the bidders for the Marhowra Project in 2008-09.
Four elements are required to establish as to whether General Electric did commit this corrupt practice and whether it was liable to be disqualified and blacklisted.
·        Did Vinod Sharma work for GE in 2010 on the bid for the Marhowra Project?
·        Did Vinod Sharma earlier act as an advisor to the Railway Ministry for the same Project?
·        Did these facts violate clauses of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ which defined corrupt and undesirable practices and conflict of interest?  
·        What were the consequences prescribed by the RFQ for such violation? 

i.        Material and evidence to establish that Vinod Sharma worked for GE in 2010 on the bid for the Marhowra Project.
·        The Appellant in her writ petition described her meetings with Vinod Sharma in the GE office in May, June and July 2010 where Vinod Sharma's gave his advice on the draft bid documents that the GE team had prepared for the Madhepura and Marhowra tenders. Vinod Sharma also met Railway officials along with the GE team on several occasions.

·        The appellant also produced on record two internal GE emails referring to Vinod Sharma and his visits to the GE office. 

General Electric internal emails dated July 5, 2010 sent in connection with Mr. Vinod Sharma's visit to the GE office. The first email was sent by Mr. Pratyush Kumar at 8:17 am on July 5, 2010 with the subject "RFQ". The email was sent to Mr. Ashish Malhotra, Mr. Gaurav Negi, Mr. Ashfaq Nainar, Ms. Praveena Yagnambhat, Mr. Ramesh Mathur and to the Appellant. It stated:
"Mr Sharma will be coming to AIFACS around 11 am to go through D-Loco RFQ submittal."
Mr. Ramesh Mathur replied to this email at 8.20 a.m. and stated:
"We were planning for tomorrow. If he is coming today we will share work-in-progress. Thanks. Ramesh"
Mr. Pratyush Kumar replied to Mr. Ramesh Mathur at 8:22 am and stated:
"Earlier the better – can do another round. I DO NOT want things at the last moment."
Copies of these three emails are part of the court record in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 in the Delhi High Court as part of Annexure P-7 to the Petition at page 219.


·        Even the unauthorised affidavit filed Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 on behalf of General Electric confirmed that Vinod Sharma was working for General Electric in 2010 on its bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura tenders.

A "Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit" dated 23 March 2013 filed for the General Electric Respondents (Nos. 1, 6 and 7) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 states on internal page 62:

" … the Answering Respondents state that GE India did in fact enter into a written agreement to govern its relationship with Mr Sharma's company, Essvee Consultants, effective August 11, 2009."


Interestingly this affidavit disclosed that GE India had entered into a written contract with Vinod Sharma, through what the affidavit described as his "company" "Essvee Consultants" effective from 11 Aug 2009. However, a search of corporate records at the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has revealed that there exists no company registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs with the name "Essvee Consultants". There is no incorporated company in existence in India whose name begins with "Essvee Consultants".

ii. Material and Evidence to establish that Vinod Sharma had earlier in 2008 and 2009 advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and tender
·        Internal Ministry of Railways 2008 document downloaded by the Petitioner on June 25, 2012 from the Ministry of Railways website at http://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/O&M/Annexture_1_4.pdf and titled "Annexture_1_4.pdf" contains the following statement on the role of PwC as the consultant to the Indian Railways for the Marhowra diesel locomotive factory tender:

"Ministry of Railways have appointed a Consultant M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers for advisory on setting up of new unit.
Final report for the first part, which is on strategy, has since been received and the consultant has been given a go-ahead for the second part of the report i.e. bid process management.
A final decision on Joint Venture will be taken based on the response in the bidding process.
Status on selection of developer for setting up new Manufacturing Units in Joint Venture:
Draft Agreements (Procurement contract, maintenance contract and shareholders' agreement) approved by the Board(MM).
Legally vetted copy of final Land Lease agreement incorporating views of AM/Adviser's Committee has been submitted by the Consultant (PWC) and put up to Board(ME) for approval.
Legally vetted copy of Procurement Contract has been received from the Consultant. Other draft agreements (Shareholders' agreement and Maintenance Contract) are under legal vetting with the Consultlant.
Procurement Specialist for validating procurement contract hired by the Consultlant, has started work. Work likely to be completed in a week's time.
After validation of Procurement Contract and legal vetting of draft agreements, final bid document (RFP) will be put up for approval by Board(MM, FC & CRB) and MR. Likely date of submission is 30-04-2008.
A fresh RFQ based on approval by Planning Commission will be issued shortly.
Further bid process will depnd on the reply to the reference made to the Ministry of Finance.
Bid process is likely to be completed by August, 2008.
The project is expected to be completed in about 2 to 2½ years after CCEA's approval is obtained for going ahead with bidding process for Joint – Venture."


·        An ADB document from November 2008 numbered T A 4998 (IND): Preparing the Railway Sector Investment Program Final Report – Efficiency Improvement. This document includes Mr. Vinod Sharma's name as a representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. This document appears to be a consultancy report prepared by PwC for the Ministry of Railways under ADB funding and includes advice on the Electric and Diesel Locomotive Tenders. Copies of relevant extracts from this were annexed as Annexure P-3 to the Petitioner's rejoinder affidavit dated 9/7/2012 filed in WP Civil 1280/ 2012. This document establishes that in 2008, Mr Vinod Sharma was working for PricewaterhouseCoopers which was advising the Ministry of Railways on the bids for the diesel locomotive factory.

·        A news report dated 3 October 2008 published by Live Mint which stated "PwC is advising the railways on the diesel locomotive bids."

"Govt shortlists five MNCs for $8 bn Indian Railways orders
The firms will compete for deals to build and supply 660 electric locomotives and 1,000 diesel engines"
Rahul Chandran and K.P. Narayana Kumar

·        An article titled 'Indian Railways: Steamrolling towards new horizons' by Vineet Unnikrishnan published in the India Law Journal in the fourth quarter of 2008 described the engagement of PwC by the Indian Railways in these terms:

"PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a renowned professional consultancy company and Singhania & Partners, a distinguished legal firm are handling the financial and legal nitty-gritty's respectively. These firms are currently in the course of preparing the details of the structure for some of the projects which includes the procedure of the entire bidding process, ownership shares, management, etc which will lay a foundation for future projects of a similar nature. The primary focus of the two firms is on the work related to the establishment of new mainline factories (NMF) and identifying and acknowledging the legal issues that can impact the said ventures, reviewing and preparing the requisite project and transaction documentation, conducting legal vetting, providing valuable advice legal questions in the management of the bidding process collection of significant legal data needed for the successful development of the factories and creation of inventive strategies to manage the bids and pick competent developers for the new factories." See http://www.indialawjournal.com/volume1/issue_4/article_by_vineet.html



·        In its counter affidavit dated 2 July 2012 the Railway Ministry first attempted to mislead the Court by stating that it "has never engaged Shri Vinod Sharma for any work in connection with the said tenders" referring to the 2010 tenders whereas the relevant RFQ clause proscribed conflict of interest in respect of the "Project" thereby including within the prohibition also the previous cancelled tender for the Project in 2009-09. This statement was countered by the appellant in her rejoinder affidavit wherein it was pointed out that both Clause 2.2.1 (d) and Clause 4.1.3 (a) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ which defined and prohibited conflict of interest used the word "Project".

·        This was followed by an even more serious attempt by the Railway Ministry to mislead the Court which included perjury and fabrication of false evidence through its affidavit dated 14 January 2013 filed in reply to CM 19501/ 2012 filed by the appellant.

·        In its affidavit dated 14 January 2013, the Ministry of Railways actually produced two patently fabricated letters which were used to make a false statement in the affidavit that Vinod Sharma did not advise the Ministry on the Marhowra Rail Project. Both these letters are reproduced and analysed below. This conduct by the Railway Ministry where it failed to honestly answer the question as to whether or not Vinod Sharma ever advised the Ministry on the Marhowra Project, and where instead the attempt was to lie based upon fabricated documents is by itself evidence and material sufficient to lead to the inference that the Railway Ministry is trying to hide the true facts. These documents establish that the Railway Ministry has tried to protect GE and to cover up its corrupt practice by deliberately misleading the Court on the point of Vinod Sharma. This conduct by the Railway Ministry it is submitted constitutes perjury and contempt of court and involves a criminal conspiracy to deceive the court and to fabricate false evidence.

·        Fabricated letter dated: 27.12.2012 addressed to Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RITES Ltd. from G.K. Gupta, Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project) Railway Board filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAILWAY BOARD

No. 2012/M(W)/964/26                 New Delhi, Dated: 27.12.2012

Chairman-cum-Managing Director
RITES Ltd.
Gurgaon
Sub. Setting up of Diesel locomotive Factory, Marhowra
Ref. Writ Petition No. 1280/2012 in Delhi High Court.

A Writ Petition No. 1280/2012 has been filed in Delhi High Court against M/s General Electric Company and others in which Ministry of Railways is also one of the Respondents. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has raised certain issues related to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers, who had been engaged by M/s RITES as consultant for setting up of Diesel Locomotive Factory, Marhowra. The contents of Writ Petition are posted on website of Delhi High Court.

You may kindly get the same examined and submit your comments by 31.12.12 positively as the same are to be discussed on 1,1.2013 with Counsel of Central Government for finalizing the Counter Affidavit. Concerned officers may discuss and seek any clarification on the matter with undersigned on 28.12.12.

Yours sincerely,

(G.K. Gupta)
Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project)
 Railway Board


·        Fabricated letter dated Dt. 7.1.2013 addressed to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.) Railway Board from Anil Vij, GGM/RW&IE at RITES filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013

RITES LTD                                                                   
(A Government of India Enterprise)
RW&IE DIVISION
2ndFloor, Centre Wing, RITES BHAWAN
PLOT No 1, Sector 29
Gurgaon- 122,001, Haryana, (India)
Telefax : +91(0124)2571627
No. 2012/RITES/RW&IE/DLF/Marhowra
Dt. 7.1.2013

Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.)
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi – 110001.

Dear Sir,
Sub:- Setting up Diesel Locomotive Factory, Marhowra
Ref:- Rly. Bd.'s letter no. 2012/M(W)/964/26 dt. 27.12.12

In reference to the above letter from Railway Board in regard to the writ petition no. 1280/2012 filed in Delhi High Court, the issues related to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers raised by the petitioner have been examined and the comments of RITES are as under:-

i)Railway Board, vide letter no. 2006/Infra./PPP/Consultancy dt. 11.10.2006 (copy placed at Annexure-1) communicated to RITES that Railway Board has approved appointment of RITES for providing consultancy services to the Ministry of Railways to engage Consultancy firm for advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Bidding Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell.

ii) Accordingly, RITES went through with the process of engaging a consultancy form on behalf of the Ministry of Railways and issued Letter of Award dt. 2.3.2007 to M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd. (PwC) – copy placed at Annexure-2 and signed an agreement dated 6.3.2007 as the Employer's Representative on behalf of the Ministry of Railways (Employer) and M/s PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd. (Consultant) – copy placed at Annexure-3.

iii)As regards the issue of Mr. Vinod Sharma raised by the petitioner, it is brought out that the relevant records have been checked and as per the Technical Proposal -Part II of M/s PwC of December, 2006, the Team Composition of PwC for the consultancy assignment mentioned in Para I above, was as under:-
S.No. Name Position
Technical/ Managerial Staff
1. Amrit Pandurangi Project Manager (Senior PPP Specialist)
2. Latha Ramanathan Financial Analyst
3. Vishwas Udgirkar Procurement Specialist
4. Dipak Rao Legal Specialist
5. Rahul Garg Tax Specialist
6. Sarabjit Arjan Singh Technology Expert (Passenger Coach)
7. Harry Aghjayan Technology Expert (Wheel)
8. Claude Messier Technology Expert (Diesel Locomotive)
9. Raymond Booth Technology Expert (Electric Locomotive)
Support Staff
10. Nripesh Kumar PPP Specialist / Project Management
11. Kushal Singh Bid Process Management Specialist
12. Manav Bansal Financial Analyst
13. Sarika Jain Financial Analyst
14. Subrajit Ghadel Bid Process Management Specialist
15. Kishore Desai Research Expert
16. Ashutosh Bhandari Research Expert

Further, at no stage during the currency of the assignment, M/s PwC informed RITES/Ministry of Railways about any change in the team composition.

Thus from the information furnished by PwC, it is seen that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not a part of the PwC team that worked on the consultancy assignment.

The above is for your information please.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,

(Anil Vij)
GGM/RW&IE
Encl. :- As Above.

·        The second letter from RITES to the Railway Board dated 7.1.2013 refers to a consultancy contract with PwC dated 6.3.2007 and then uses the list of the proposed team composition in the Technical Proposal -Part II of M/s PwC of December, 2006 to state that Vinod Sharma was not a part of the team that worked on that consultancy assignment.

·        As a matter of fact, there were two separate consultancy contracts entered into between the Railway Ministry/RITES and PwC.

·        The first was the contract dated 6.3.2007 which was a consultancy to advise on the process the Railway Ministry should prefer for setting up its proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories.
A news report dated February 18, 2007 available on the internet at http://www.steelguru.com/indian_news/Indian_Railway_selects_PWC_as_advisor_for_rolling_stock_venture/18380.html states: "Business Line reported that Indian Railways has selected Price Waterhouse Coopers to advise it on the process it should prefer for setting up its proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories. The report cites an Indian railway official as saying that "PWC is required to submit an inception report within a fortnight. And the final advisory report has to be submitted within another two and a half months." On behalf of the Railway Ministry, RITES had invited competitive bids from consulting firms to provide advisory services on development strategy and bid process management for selection of developers for new factories."
This contract with PwC dated 6.3.2007 was only for 3 months and this assignment was completed by June 2007. This contract was also not specific exclusively to the Marhowra Project but was for provision of advisory services on development strategy and bid process management for selection of developers for the new proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories.

·        In 2008, the Railway Ministry either directly or through RITES entered into another consultancy contract with PwC which is referred to in the internal Ministry of Railways 2008 document downloaded by the Petitioner on June 25, 2012 from the Ministry of Railways website at http://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/O&M/Annexture_1_4.pdf and titled "Annexture_1_4.pdf" which has been reproduced above. This is also the contract mentioned in the news report dated 3 October 2008 published by Live Mint which stated "PwC is advising the railways on the diesel locomotive bids." This is also the contract mentioned in the article published in the fourth   quarter of 2008 in the India Law Journal, the relevant part reproduced hereinabove. It is under this 2008 contract with the Railway Ministry that PwC provided advisory services on the bid documents and bid evaluation for the 2008-2009 Marhowra Project and tender. Vinod Sharma was part of the PwC team advising the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and tender under this 2008 contract with PwC.

·        So when called upon by the Delhi High Court to answer as to whether Vinod Sharma had advised the Ministry of Railways as part of the PwC team for preparation of  bid documents and for bid evaluation for the Marhowra Project and tender in 2008, officials of the Railway Ministry and RITES were made to write fabricated letters dated 27.12.2012 and 7.1.2013 which referred not to the relevant 2008 contract with PwC but to an entirely different, earlier and irrelevant contract dated 6.3.2007 and this letter was then used to create false evidence by way of the RITES reply dated 7.1.2013 which was in turn used by the Railway Ministry to lie on affidavit that Vinod Sharma had not advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project.

·        This lie also stands exposed because the PwC contract dated 6.3.2007 mentioned in the RITES letter dated 7.1.2013 involved advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Bidding Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell. The Bid Process that was finally adopted by the Railway Ministry for both the Marhowra and the Madhepura Projects in 2008 involved a two stage bidding process with separate RFQ and RFP stages.

·        That there was a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the Court by the Railway Ministry is also evident from the following:

o   The letter to RITES from G.K. Gupta, Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project), Railway Board dated 27.12.2012 did not provide a copy of the writ petition to RITES. Instead the letter resorts to the falsehood that a copy of the writ petition was available on the website of the Delhi High Court. This letter does not state the conflict of interest complaint against General Electric, Vinod Sharma and PwC. In fact, it does not even mention Vinod Sharma. This letter which asks RITES for comments on a complaint of corruption and conflict of interest in a pending writ petition for the express purpose of drafting a court affidavit does not even disclose to RITES what the complaint was, and what the issue and facts in contention were, and therefore what the question being put to RITES was.
o   The response from Anil Vij, GGM/RW&IE, RITES to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.), Railway Board dated 7.1.2013 refers to, as explained above, a contract signed with PwC dated 6.3.2007 and states that copies of the letter of award dated 2.3. 2007 and contract dated 6.3.2007 are attached to the letter, but these attachments were not included in the railway affidavit which produced this letter before the Delhi High Court. This for the obvious reason that the persons who drafted, signed and affirmed the affidavit were aware that this contract dated 6.3.2007 was not the relevant contract and that instead the relevant contract was from 2008. These persons were aware that they were drafting and/or signing a false and misleading statement on oath in an affidavit with intent to mislead the court and to cover up corruption by General Electric Company.
o   While the letter dt 27.12.2012 from the Railway Ministry is addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of RITES, the reply dated 7.12013 from RITES has not been issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, but under the name of one Mr Anil Vij with the words GGM/ RW&IE printed underneath. The letter does not bear a full signature and instead has merely been initialled and even these initials are illegible.

·        The affidavit dated January 14, 2013 filed for the Railway Ministry states at page 12 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma that: "A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra".
·        It is submitted that this statement in the Railway Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 is false and that the officers who have signed this affidavit have attempted to protect themselves by using the words "evidently discloses". The phrase "evidently discloses" is commonly used to distance oneself from a statement of fact and to deny any personal responsibility for the fact being asserted.

·        The Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 filed for the Railway Ministry is signed and affirmed by two officers from the Railway Ministry, one of whom is Gopal Krishan Gupta, Executive Director, Mechanical Engineering (Project) Railway Board, the same person who wrote to RITES on 27.12.2012. The other officer is Nihar Ranjan Dash, Executive Director, Electrical Engineering (Development) Railway Board. Both G K Gupta and N R Dash therefore in their affidavit dated January 14, 2013 have by using the words "evidently discloses" denied personal responsibility and ownership of the statement that "A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra".

·        For the reasons set out hereinabove, the statements made on behalf of the Railway Ministry in its affidavit dated January 14, 2013 in paragraphs 17, 18, 20, and 32 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma are false and incorrect. These statements and the misleading record created and produced by the Railway   Ministry are clearly the result of a planned conspiracy under advice of lawyers, by Railway Ministry officials to deceive and mislead the court with intent to cover up the corrupt nature of the dealings between PwC, Vinod Sharma and General Electric in 2008, 2009 and 2010. These statements amount to perjury and the fabrication of documents and evidence as described herein above amount to criminal offences under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

·    Even the affidavit-in-reply verified on 23 March 2013 and filed on behalf of the General Electric respondents contains the following statement:
"The Answering Respondents are unaware of the percentage of text from the 2010 diesel tender documents that is similar to the earlier project documents. Further, the Answering Respondents are unaware of what role, if any, Mr. Sharma or PwC served in reviewing documents associated with the 2008 diesel locomotive tender".
The fact that PwC was advising the Railway Ministry on the 2008 Marhowra tender was public knowledge and widely published. GE executives would have attended formal pre-bid meetings with Railway officials and PwC representatives in 2008. Therefore this statement in this affidavit-in-reply verified on 23 March 2013 and filed on behalf of the General Electric respondents is also false.

·        As stated above, a "Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit" dated 23 March 2013 filed for the GE Respondents (Nos. 1, 6 and 7) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 states that GE India entered into a written agreement with Vinod Sharma's company, Essvee Consultants, effective August 11, 2009.
There are no records for such company with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.  
A search on the internet for Essvee Consultants shows that there is a website with the domain name http://www.essveeconsultants.com/. The "company profile" on this website reads:
"Established in 2009, *Essvee Consultants* is a trusted placement agency providing total recuritment solutions for diverse industries having its offices in Ajmer (Rajasthan) and Faridabad (Haryana). We are engaged in providing manpower solutions in India as well as abroad. The company has been established with the sole objective of dedicatedly serving the Human Resource Sector with quality service. The company is providing consultation and value added HR services to Corporate and other small Business Houses. Our prime focus is on offering HR Services that exactly match the requirements of our esteemed clients".

The "management team" and "contact" pages on this website list the following three names: Sandeep Dutt Sharma, Rajesh Sharma and Rahul Sharma. All three names share the surname "Sharma" with Mr Vinod Sharma. It is pointed out that this Essvee Consultants claims to have been established in 2009.

·        General Electric therefore engaged Vinod Sharma in 2009 and 2010 for advice on its bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura Projects. Vinod Sharma had earlier in 2008-2009 been part of the PwC team that advised and consulted with the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and the 2008-2009 Marhowra tender. This PwC team advised on bid strategy, it drafted bid documents, and it evaluated the 2008-2009 Marhowra tender bids including the bid of General Electric.

iii. & iv
The above facts and evidence establish that General Electric violated Clause 2.2.1 (d) [conflict of interest],  Clause 4.1.3 (a) [corrupt practice] and Clause 4.1.3 d) [undesirable practice] of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ.  
As a result General Electric was liable to be not only disqualified under the 2010 Marhowra RFQ but also liable to be blacklisted from all Railway Ministry Projects for a period of two years under Clause 4.1.1 and Clause 4.1.2 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ respectively.
·        The relevant clauses of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ

Clause 2.2.1 (d)
"An Applicant shall be liable for disqualification if any legal, financial or technical adviser of the Authority in relation to the Project is engaged by the Applicant during the Bidding Process or after the issue of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, till commissioning of the factory as per provisions to be specified in the RFP, in any manner for matters related to or incidental to the Project."


Clause 4.1.3 (a) 
""corrupt practice" means (i) the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting, directly or indirectly, of anything of value to influence the actions of any person connected with the Bidding Process (for avoidance of doubt, offering of employment to or employing or engaging in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, any official of the Authority who is or has been associated in any manner, directly or indirectly with the Bidding Process or the LoA or has dealt with matters concerning the Agreement or arising therefrom, before or after the execution thereof, at any time prior to the expiry of one year from the date such official resigns or retires from or otherwise ceases to be in the service of the Authority, shall be deemed to constitute influencing the actions of a person connected with the Bidding Process) or (ii) engaging in any manner whatsoever, whether during the Bidding Process or after the issue of the LOA or after the execution of the Agreement, as the case may be, till commissioning of the factory as per provisions to be specified in the RFP, any person in respect of any matter relating to the Project or the LOA or the Agreement, who at any time has been or is a legal, financial or technical   adviser of the Authority in relation to any matter concerning the Project".

Clause 4.1.1
"The Applicants and their respective officers, employees, agents and advisers shall observe the highest standard of ethics during the Bidding Process. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Authority shall reject an Application without being liable in any manner whatsoever to the Applicant if it determines that the Applicant has, directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged in corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice in the Bidding Process."

Clause 4.1.2
"Without prejudice to the rights of the Authority under Clause 4.1.1 hereinabove, if an Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice during the Bidding Process, such Applicant shall not be eligible to participate in any tender or RFQ issued by the Authority during a period of 2 (two) years from the date such Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice, as the case may be."

Clause 4.1.3 d) 
"undesirable practice" means (i) establishing contact with any person connected with or employed or engaged by the Authority with the objective of canvassing, lobbying or in any manner influencing or attempting to influence the Bidding Process; or (ii) having a Conflict of Interest".

Clause 1.2.1". "The term "Project" is defined by this RFQ in Clause 1.2.1 as follows:
"The Project for which the Applications are being invited pursuant to this RFQ Document shall comprise of the following:
i. setting up a new Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives factory at Marhowra, Bihar (hereafter referred as the "Site"); and
ii. supplying Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives to the Authority; and
iii. providing maintenance support for the Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives procured by the Authority from the new factory."





Fake Authority Docs issued by Alexander Dimitrief & Bradford Berenson for General Electric Company and Fraud committed by Alexander Dimitrief & Bradford Berenson in Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding summons/ notice to and appearance by General Electric Company
General Electric Company is a large conglomerate incorporated in the United States. Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to General Electric Company on 7.3.2012. 
Advocate Nanju Ganpathy appeared on 9.5.2012 claiming to represent General Electric Company and continued to appear thereafter. Mr Nanju Ganpathy was at that time and until recently a Partner in the law-firm AZB & Partners.
Affidavits were filed on behalf of General Electric Company through one K R Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of General Electric Company were produced.
At Petitioner's request, order dated 12.10.2012 was passed directing Nanju Ganpathy to produce authority documents to show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of General Electric Company.
Nanju Ganpathy filed a photocopy of a document labelled as a Power of Attorney executed by one Alexander Dimitrief on 4.5.2012. This document had a validity of one year. A copy of this document was emailed by Nanju Ganpathy to the petitioner after repeated requests on November 12, 2012.
The petitioner filed CM 18642/2012 on 16 November 2012 pointing out the defects with this alleged authority document and that this document was invalid.
The Petitioner discovered that no vakalatnama had been filed by Nanju Ganpathy so she filed CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi High Court registry shows that a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 also 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]
CM 19683/2012 was filed by the Petitioner 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 General Electric Company under a Power of Attorney (POA) dated 4.5.2012 issued in his favour by Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company.
Affidavit of K Radhakrishnan filed on 7.1.2013 producing an extract from the Board Minutes of General Electric Company containing Board Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009 and 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.

Petitioner filed CM 522/2013 on 14.1.2013 pointing out that the board resolution of General Electric Company placed on the court record showed that the alleged Power of Attorney document was ultra-vires, illegal and invalid.
Nanju Ganpathy filed another vakalatnama for General Electric Company on 16.7.2013. This vakalatnama was allegedly signed by Bradford Berenson on 9.5.2013.
Attached to this vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 was a photocopy of a document labelled as a power of attorney allegedly executed on 29 April 2013 by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company. This was also only valid for one year.
The petitioner filed CM 10493 of 2013 on 19.7.2013 pointing out that the new vakalatnama dated 9.5.2013 was also invalid as was the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson dated 29.4.2013.
Since none of the petitioner's applications on this issue were being heard or even taken up by the Delhi High Court, and because Nanju Ganpathy continued to appear for General Electric Company without a valid vakalatnama and since K Radhakrishnan continued to impersonate as authorized signatory of General Electric Company, the petitioner was constrained to move another application on this issue on 21 November 2014 being CM 18969 of 2014. Attached to this application as Annexure P-6 was a specimen signature of Bradford Berenson which was completely different from the signature on the alleged Power of Attorney dated 16.7.2013 and on the alleged vakalatnama dated 9.5.2013.

It is submitted that in any event, since the Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 was valid only for one year, it lapsed and ceased to have legal effect from 29.4.2014 onwards.
Therefore, even without going into the authenticity and legal validity of the authority documents and vakalatnamas filed on behalf of General Electric Company, it is clear that General Electric Company was not legally represented by anyone before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 from 30.4.2014 onward.
Issues concerning these authority documents and vakalatnamas
1.     Were the Powers of Attorneys dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson lawful and valid authority documents and was K Radhakrishnan legally appointed as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company for the purpose of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 before the Delhi High Court?
2.     Were these documents as placed on the court record by Nanju Ganpathy genuine or fraudulent?
3.     Did K Radhakrishnan impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court and file unauthorized and false affidavits?
4.     Was Advocate Nanju Ganpathy authorized to represent and appear for General Electric Company?

Who is K Radhakrishnan?
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company. He has described himself in his affidavits as the company secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited, a fully owned Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company.

Who is Alexander Dimitrief?
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. Alexander Dimitrief has been appointed as General Counsel of General Electric Company with effect from 1.11.2015. 

Who is Bradford Berenson.
Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as the Operational Officer for Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric Company on 15 October 2012. This was the same position that Alexander Dimitrief occupied until November 1, 2011. Curiously, this crucial Operational Officer position at General Electric Company was not filled for almost a year from November 1, 2011 until 15 October 2012. Mr Bradford Berenson has left GE in 2017.

Were the Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson legal and valid in law?

The authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company emanates from its Board Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009). as incorporated in the Board Minutes of General Electric Company. 
Under this Board Resolution, both Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had the authority to sign court pleadings and powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company for litigation purposes but they had no authority to further delegate this authority to anyone. 
This Board Resolution is reproduced hereinafter enclosed in a separate table. The language of the Power of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and the Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson is also reproduced hereinafter enclosed in separate tables.
General Electric Company's Board Resolution No. 10855 stipulates in Paragraph A that certain types of documents/ instruments including court pleadings and powers of attorney can only be signed on behalf of General Electric Company by 
(i) Corporate Officers of the Company who are identified by position as "Authorized Persons"; 
(ii) by an Operational Officer of the Company where such document pertains to the component or function to which such officer is assigned; 
(iii) by a Manager or Acting Manager of the relevant Division or Department of General Electric Company. 
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company. Further, Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had no authority to delegate to K Radhakrishnan the authority to execute either court pleadings or powers of attorney (or vakalatnamas which are a special form of power of attorney) on behalf of General Electric Company in relation to Writ Petition Civil No. 1290/2012 filed in the Delhi High Court. 
The Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson respectively violate General Electric Company's Board Resolution No. 10855 and are therefore illegal and invalid documents and they therefore conferred no authority upon K Radhakrishnan to represent himself as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court.
K Radhakrishnan has impersonated as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court and the affidavits filed by him before the Delhi High Court were unauthorized, false and perjurious.
GE lawyers - Brackett Denniston (who retired as General Counsel of General Electric Company on 31.10.2015), Alexander Dimitrief, and Bradford Berenson knowingly participated in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, by falsifying fraudulent and invalid powers of attorney with intent to enable K Radhakrishna to unlawfully impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in a whistleblower litigation involving complaints and evidence of corruption by General Electric Company. K Radhakrishnan was used to commit a fraud on the Delhi High Court, on the Government of India and on General Electric Company itself. K Radhakrishnan was used to sign and file false and unauthorized affidavits in the Delhi High Court. 
Information about this litigation was suppressed from General Electric Company by Brackett Denniston, Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson and Jeffrey Eglash, all senior level in-house lawyers for General Electric Company. 



EXTRACTS FROM MINUTES OF
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
April 26, 1988
(Revised March 9, 2007)
(Revised November 6, 2009)

10855   EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS
The Chairman reminded the Board that the resolution dealing with the execution of contracts and other instruments on behalf of the company had last been reviewed and revised by the Board in June, 1985, at which time the resolution had been modified to reflect changes in the Company's organization ad to   change its form to make periodic organization updatings unnecessary under ordinary circumstances.
          The Chairman noted that the principal purpose of this resolution is to indicate to persons outside the Company the individuals within the Company who have authority to sign various documents.
          In view of the Board's determination to limit the individuals elected as officers of the Company (and authorize the Chairman of the Board to appoint and remove persons as non-corporate Operational Officers), he indicated that it would be advisable to consider revising and clarifying this resolution to   take account of these clarifications and related matters.
          The Chairman pointed out that, like the existing resolution, the proposed resolution would 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 powers 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.
          Following discussion, it was
                   RESOLVED, that
                   "(A)   Any contract, lease, license, assignment, bond or other obligation, conveyance, power of attorney, guarantee, proxy, court pleading, release, tax return, and related documents, or other instruments may be executed on behalf of this Company by the Chairman of the Board, a Vice Chairman of the Board, an Executive Vice President, a Senior Vice President, a Vice President reporting directly to the Chairman or a Vice Chairman of the Board, the Comptroller, the Treasurer, the Secretary or any Vice President who is a corporate staff officer of the Company, all of the above-named individuals being hereinafter called "Authorized Persons".
          In addition to the foregoing, any Operational Officer may sign any instrument of the type described in this Paragraph (A) which relates to the component or function to which such Operational Officer is assigned, and any Manager, or formally designated Acting Manager, of any Division or Department level   organization component may sign any such instrument which relates to that component. Each Operational Officer and each such Manager or Acting Manager is authorized to delegate to others, authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the types of contracts or other instruments which relate to the function or component to which such Operational Officer, Manager or Acting Manager is assigned which are of the same types as the contracts and other instruments listed in Paragraph (C) below.
          (B)     The Chairman of the Board and each of the Vice Chairmen of the Board is authorized to delegate to others authority to execute contracts and other instruments on behalf of the Company as he considers necessary and in the best interest of the Company.
          (C)     Each Authorized Person is hereby authorized to delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company the following types of contracts and other instruments which relate to the function or component for which such Authorized Person is responsible:
1.       Sales, purchase and consignment contracts …
2.       Installation, erection, and service contracts …
3.       Assignments, waivers of lien, releases, guaranties, mortgages, indentures, credit agreements …
4.       Contracts, leases, deeds, or other instruments relating to real property …
5.       Powers of Attorney authorizing agents and attorneys to acquire and dispose of motor vehicles …
6.       Powers of Attorney authorizing agents and attorneys to transact business of the Company with the U.S. Customs Service and with customs authorities in other countries.
(D)    The Senior Vice President-Finance and the Vice President and Treasurer are each severally authorized to delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company the following types of instruments, and in connection therewith to establish, as appropriate, Company-wide procedures:
1.       Agreements or other instruments relating to (a) investment of funds of the Company …
2.       Checks, drafts, other payment authorizations and notes payable of the Company …
3.       Guarantees of indebtedness of foreign or domestic affiliates of the Company …
E)      The Senior Vice President-Finance and the Vice President and Comptroller are each severally authorized to delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the following types of contracts and other instruments:
1.       Federal, State or local tax returns …
2.       Reports of collections from employees and taxes due from the Company …
3.       Applications, claims, surrender and other forms in connection with the General Electric Supplemental Life Insurance Program
4.       Annual, financial and other reports required of the Administrator …
5.       Such certifications, invoices, reports, releases and other instruments as are necessary to conform to requirements of the United States Government …
(F)     The General Counsel is authorized to delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the following types of instruments:
1.       Licences, contracts, assignments, releases, court pleadings and other instruments relating to inventions and technology and to patent, trademark and copyright matters.
2.       Petitions, powers of attorney, authorizations, verifications, nominations of representatives, declarations, and other instruments relating to proceedings in the Patent, Trademark Registration or Copyright Offices servicing any country or region of the world, or to related appeal proceedings, or relating to maintenance and defense of the resulting industrial property rights, assignment of rights to apply for and acquire patents and trademark registrations, evidence of such assignments, requests for the registration of patents as available for licencing, reports of inventions and petitions for waiver of patent rights to any department or agency of the United States Government and assignments, licenses and other instruments confirmatory of Government rights in patents and inventions.
(G) Any contract, lease, deed or other instrument relating to real property or to any improvements located or to be located thereon may be executed on behalf of this Company by any of the following of the Global Asset Management division of GE Capital Real Estate: the Senior Vice President, Global Asset Management, the Managing Director-Corporate Properties and Services Operation, the Manager-Legal Operation of the Corporate Properties and Services Operation, or the Director-Corporate Real Estate of the Real Estate Services Operation.
H)      Any delegations (including revocations and revisions) as authorized by this Resolution shall be in writing. Authority delegated pursuant to the last sentence of Paragraph (A) or pursuant to Paragraphs (B), (C), (D), (E) or (F) above may be redelegated by the persons to whom such delegations are made who in turn may authorize further redelegation; provided, however, that no such initial or subsequent redelegation shall be made except in conformity with the limitations imposed thereon by the initial delegation plus any restrictions contained in subsequent redelegations.
          (I)      The Secretary, the Associate Corporate Secretary and any Attesting Secretary are each severally authorized to affix the Corporate Seal to and attest to contracts and other instruments executed by persons acting pursuant to the authority granted by Paragraphs (A) or (G) above or pursuant to the authority delegated in accordance with Paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F) or (H) above. The Secretary, the Associate Corporate Secretary and any Attesting Secretary are also each severally authorized to certify as to the provisions of this Resolution, as to the incumbency of any person in any position within the Company and as to the terms of any delegation under this Resolution.
          (J)      Resolution #10502 dated June 28, 1985 is superseded effective as of April 26, 1988.



Reproduced below is the language of the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief. This document is also invalid because it incorrectly identifies K R Radhakrishnan, the alleged Attorney by wrongly describing him as son of K R Radhakrishnan and by recording his address incorrectly.

POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME WE, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY a company incorporated under the laws of the state of New York acting through its principal office at 3135Easton Turnpike, Fairfield, CT 06828, United States of America, hereinafter referred to as "the Grantor" (which expression shall, unless repugnant to the subject, meaning or context thereof, be deemed to include its successors in interest and assigns) SEND GREETINGS
WHEREAS:
A.   The Grantor carries on the business inter alia of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, industrial automation, railway locomotives, motors, aircraft jet engines.
B.    The Grantor has been impleaded as a party to certain proceedings before the Delhi High Court filed by Ms. Seema Sapra, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi ("Proceedings") and for the purpose of these Proceedings the Grantor is desirous of appointing a fit and proper person to prosecute and defend and for that purpose to appear and represent the Grantor before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India as may be necessary, in relation to the Proceedings and does hereby nominate Mr. K. R. Radhakrishnan (the "Attorney") to act for the Grantor which the Attorney has consented to do.
NOW KNOW YE AND THESE PRESETS WITNESS THAT THE GRANTOR does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint Mr. Mr. K R Radhakrishnan, aged about 53 years, son of Mr. K. R. Radhakrishnan and residing at A 202, Emeral Court I, Essel Towers, MG Road, Gurgaon 122 002, India to be the true and lawful Attorney in its name and on its behalf to do, 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:
1.     With respect to the Proceedings to appear and represent the Grantor before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India as may be necessary for or in connection with the Proceedings, and also to prefer any appeal or proceeding against any order passed therein, as instructed by us in writing.
2.     To give in the name and on behalf of the Grantor such undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility as shall be confirmed and instructed by us in connection with or incidental to the Proceedings.
3.     To engage Advocate/s, Solicitor/s, legal Adviser and/or Arbitrators, and to instruct them and to sign, verify, execute and/or provide the necessary vakalatnama, plaint, written statement, petitions, affidavits, appeals, applications, pleadings, and evidence in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India, in relation to the Proceedings, and papers of every description that may be necessary to be signed, verified and executed by the Grantor or in the name of the Grantor or on behalf of the Grantor for the purpose of the Proceedings and also to accept service of summons, notices or other proceedings of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India and to act, appear and apply on our behalf in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
4.     THE GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES that the Attorney is not authorized to delegate any of his powers hereby conferred and is not permitted to appoint substitutes.
5.     THE GRANTOR DOES HEREBY UNDERTAKE to ratify and confirm whatever the Attorney by virtue of this Power of Attorney may lawfully do or cause to be done in and by virtue of these presents.
6.     THE GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER DECLARES that the   powers hereby conferred 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.
7.     THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY shall supersede all previously issued powers of attorney in respect of the same subject matters.
8.     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.
9.     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 Grantor in writing or lapse of a period of 1 (one) year from the date of its execution, which ever occurs earlier.
IN WITNESS THEREOF the Grantor, have hereunto set our hand this 4th day of May, 2012. 
SIGNED AND DELIVERED
by General Electric Company)
by its authorized signatory
Alexander Dimitrief


Reproduced below is the language of the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson in 2013. This document is also invalid because it incorrectly identifies K R Radhakrishnan as "working as Company Secretary of GE Industrial India Private Limited" whereas the relevant Company's name is GE India Industrial Private Limited. Here K Radhakrishnan's age is given as 56 years whereas in the Power of Attorney from 2012 his age is shown as 53 years. His affidavits from 2013 filed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 also mention his age as 53 years.

POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME WE, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY a company incorporated under the laws of the state of New York acting through its principal office at 3135Easton Turnpike, Fairfield, CT 06828, United States of America, hereinafter referred to as "the Grantor" (which expression shall, unless repugnant to the subject, meaning or context thereof, be deemed to include its successors in interest and assigns) state as follows:
WHEREAS:
A.   The Grantor carries on the business inter alia of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, industrial automation, railway locomotives, motors, aircraft jet engines.
B.    The Grantor is desirous of appointing a fit and proper person to engage and instruct advocates/counsel to act, appear and plead on behalf of the Grantor in all legal proceedings by or against the   Grantor in India before all courts, including the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, tribunals, judicial and quasi0judicial authorities in relation to Ms. Seema Sapra d/o Late Sh. A. R. Sapra ("Proceedings"),  and to sign and verify   all pleadings and affirm all affidavits and other requisite documents, on behalf of the Grantor in all such Proceedings, to file and verify any documents, as aforesaid  and to generally do all such things as may be required to be done in the conduct of such Proceedings, and does hereby nominate K. R. Radhakrishnan (hereinafter referred to as the "Attorney") to act for the Grantor which the Attorney has consented to do.
NOW KNOW YE AND THESE PRESETS WITNESS THAT THE GRANTOR does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint K R Radhakrishnan, S/o Late Sh. K Ramanurthy, aged about 56 years, working as Company Secretary of GE Industrial India Private Limited, having its registered office at 401, 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal Millenium Tower, E-1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur,  to be the true and lawful Attorney in its name and on its behalf to do, 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:
1.     With respect to the Proceedings to appear and represent the Grantor before any court, tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial authority in India or before the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India as may be necessary, required or advisable for or in connection with the Proceedings including to commence any action or other proceedings in respect thereof and to prosecute or discontinue and also to prefer any appeal or proceeding against any order passed therein, as instructed by Grantor in writing.
2.     To give in the name and on behalf of the Grantor such undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility as shall be instructed by Grantor in connection with or incidental to the Proceedings.
3.     To engage Advocate/s, Solicitor/s, legal Adviser/s and/or Arbitrator/s, and to remove him or them and to appoint in their place other Advocate/s, Solicitor/s, Legal Adviser/s and/or Arbitrator/s as the Attorney shall deem fit, and to instruct them and to sign, verify, execute and/or provide the necessary vakalatnama, plaint, written statement, petitions, affidavits, appeals, applications, pleadings, and evidence in any court, tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial authority in India or in the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India, in relation to the Proceedings, and papers of every description that may be necessary to be signed, verified and executed by the Grantor or in the name of the Grantor or on behalf of the Grantor for the purpose of the Proceedings and also to accept service of summons, notices or other proceedings of any court, tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial authority in India or the Bar Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of India and to act, appear and apply on   Grantor's behalf in any court, tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial authority in India or the Bar Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of India. 
4.     THE GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES that the Attorney is not authorized to delegate any of her powers hereby conferred and is not permitted to appoint substitutes.
5.     THE GRANTOR DOES HEREBY UNDERTAKE to ratify and confirm whatever the Attorney by virtue of this Power of Attorney may lawfully do or cause to be done in and by virtue of these presents.
6.     THE GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER DECLARES that the   powers hereby conferred 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.
7.     THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY shall supersede all previously issued powers of attorney in respect of the same subject matters.
8.     THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY shall remain in full force and effect until it is revoked by the Grantor in writing or lapse of a period of 1 (one) year from the date of its execution, whichever occurs earlier.
IN WITNESS THEREOF the Grantor, have hereunto set our hand this 29th day of April, 2013. 
SIGNED AND DELIVERED
by General Electric Company)
by its authorized signatory
Bradford A. Berenson

Both these alleged Powers of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson have a curious clause. The Alexander Dimitrief Power of Attorney states:
"6.     THE GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER DECLARES that the powers hereby conferred 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.'
A similar clause exists in the Bradford Berenson Power of Attorney. These clauses essentially provide that the instructions to the alleged attorney K R Radhakrishnan need not directly emanate from General Electric Company but might come via any number of layers of unnamed, unidentified and undisclosed intermediaries including other agents or attorneys. Thus these alleged powers of attorney also fail to provide or establish a direct link between K R Radhakrishnan and General Electric Company. Therefore, not only does K R Radhakrishnan have no direct knowledge of the facts involving General Electric Company, the actual source of his knowledge is also not General Electric but one or more layers of unknown intermediaries. These Powers of Attorney were therefore nothing but a device to create several degrees of separation and distance between Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and General Electric Company and between General Electric Company and its alleged attorney K R Radhakrishnan.
The above facts establish the following. K R Radhakrishnan impersonated as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court, The Powers of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson produced before the Delhi High Court were invalid, illegal and fraudulent. The three vakalatnamas produced for General Electric Company were invalid, illegal and fraudulent. Mr Nanju Ganpathy and other lawyers who appeared for General Electric Company in this matter at different times (including Mr Rajiv Nayar, Mr Rakesh Tiku, Mr Nanju Ganpathy, Mr Manpreet Lamba, Mr Kartik Yadav) all appeared without authorization. All affidavits filed in this matter through Mr K R Radhakrishnan purporting to be on behalf of General Electric Company were unauthorized, false, perjurious, hearsay and inadmissible.
In addition, these facts also raise the following important question of law:
Can a company like General Electric Company, one of the largest and richest corporations in the world, avoid appearing before an Indian court like the Delhi High Court in a writ petition seeking writs directing the Indian Government to act on complaints and evidence of corruption against the Company in a high value tender matter, by appointing an outsider as arms-length power of attorney to represent it in the proceedings. Does this not amount to avoiding the summons of the Court?

The Petitioner has accessed other Powers of Attorney or authority documents for General Electric Company publicly available on the internet and in all those documents, the document is duly attested by an attesting secretary of General Electric Company. No such attestation by an attesting secretary of General Electric Company appears on the alleged Powers of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson and produced before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.

All the applications filed by the petitioner setting out the above objections to the authority documents for K R Radhakrishnan and Advocate Nanju Ganpathy were simply and repeatedly adjourned by several Delhi High Court Benches and were never considered or taken up for hearing in the three years during which Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 remained pending in the Delhi High Court.


From the above, the following is established.
General Electric Company never appeared before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012. Instead a man K R Radhakrishnan impersonated as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company and filed false and unauthorized affidavits before the Delhi High Court. The alleged authority documents and vakalatnamas which were filed were fraudulent and invalid.
Please note the following facts established by documentary evidence on the Delhi High Court record in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012.
Nanju Ganpathy and other lawyers from AZB Partners and senior counsel appeared for General Electric Company in this matter for 17 different court hearings between 25 April 2012 and 10 December 2012 without any vakalatnama having been filed.
An invalid vakalatnama was filed on behalf of General Electric Company on 7 December 2012 only after the Petitioner moved CM 19370 of 2012 on 6 December 2012 pointing out that no vakalatnamas had been filed.
A false statement was made by Nanju Ganpathy to the Delhi High Court during the hearing on 10 December 2012 when he lied to the Court that a vakalatnama for General Electric Company had been filed earlier but was not on record. The fact that no vakalatnama was filed earlier is established by the electronic court record of filings maintained by the court registry.
K R Radhakrishnan filed affidavits on behalf of General Electric Company on 3 July 2012 but no authority documents were filed.
In his affidavit dated 3 July 2013, K Radhakrishnan claimed to be the authorized signatory of General Electric Company "pursuant to the powers of attorney" executed in his favour.
The alleged authority documents were filed on 19 October 2012 only after the Petitioner obtained a court order on 12 October 2012 directing Nanju Ganpathy to do so.
The authority document filed for General Electric Company on 19 October 2012 was the alleged POA dated 4 May 2012 executed by Alexander Dimitrief.
This POA was allegedly executed in the United States. It was required   to be apostilled and the original apostilled POA was required to be filed before the Delhi High Court. The original apostilled POA was not filed. Instead Nanju Ganpathy filed three pages which were photocopies. The document filed before the Delhi High Court therefore was not duly authenticated.
As discussed above, this POA dated 4 May 2012 violates General Electric Company's Board Resolution and is invalid as Alexander Dimitrief was not authorized to delegate to K R Radhakrishnan the power to execute court pleadings and/or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company.
The POA dated 4 May 2012 is also invalid as it wrongly describes K R Radhakrishnan as the son of K R Radhakrishan when the former's father's name is Late Shri K Ramanurthy. Radhakrishnan's age is also incorrectly mentioned as 53 and his address is also incorrectly recorded.
Note that the POA dated 4 May 2012 does not even mention that K R Radhakrishnan was the Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Limited.
Note that the POA dated 4 May 2012 does not mention Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 filed before the Delhi High Court by cause title or number. It merely refers to "certain legal proceedings before the Delhi High Court" filed by Ms Seema Sapra who is also merely referred to as an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council Of India.
Also, the POA dated 4 May 2012 does not even mandate a direct link between K R Radhakrishnan and General Electric Company. In fact, the POA dated 4 May 2012 very unusually provides that K R Radhakrishnan's dealings with General Electric Company could take place through other agents or attorneys. Notice that these other agents or attorneys are neither identified and nor is their authority to represent General Electric Company established.
It is also submitted that a Company issued notice in a writ petition by a Court of Law, cannot resort to appointing an arms-length attorney to represent it and appear in its place.
Also, it is settled law that even in suits, a Power of Attorney can only depose as to his personal knowledge and cannot depose on affidavit with respect to facts that are only within the personal knowledge of the Principal. K R Radhakrishnan had no authority to depose on facts that were not within his personal knowledge and on facts that pertained to General Electric Company.




Fake Authority Docs for GE India Industrial Private Limited filed in Delhi High Court. Fraud committed in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
One K Radhakrishnan impersonated as authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 using fraudulent authority documents. 
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. 
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 4 May 2013
Alleged Power of Attorney executed by Bradford Berenson on 29 April 2013 purportedly on behalf of General Electric Company 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 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.
All the applications filed by the petitioner setting out the above objections to the authority documents for K R Radhakrishnan and Advocate Nanju Ganpathy were simply adjourned by several Delhi High Court Benches and were never considered or taken up for hearing in the three years during which Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 remained pending in the Delhi High Court.



Fake Authority Docs for GE India Industrial Private Limited filed in Delhi High Court. Fraud committed in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
One K Radhakrishnan impersonated as authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 using fraudulent authority documents. 
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. 
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 4 May 2013
Alleged Power of Attorney executed by Bradford Berenson on 29 April 2013 purportedly on behalf of General Electric Company 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 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 vakalatnama.  
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 elaborated 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.



Read below for how the Railway Ministry has covered up the complaint that a forged/ tampered Kazakhstan Railway customer certificate was submitted by General Electric with its 2010 RFQ Marhowra DLF on 12 July 2010.
Since all documents that can establish this complaint are either in the possession of the Railway Ministry or of General Electric, it is obvious that the appellant cannot produce direct documentary evidence of this forgery. What the appellant can produce is her own insider eye-witness account of what she saw, read and heard when she was working with General Electric in 2010 when this document was forged.
Second the appellant can produce documentary evidence of correspondence exchanged with General Electric lawyers in 2010 and 2011 which establishes that this complaint was not properly and satisfactorily investigated by GE and that GE lawyers attempted to cover up this forgery.

The third and most important type of material and evidence that prima facie establishes the need for investigation of this complaint is documentary evidence that establishes the attempt by the Government of India including both the Railway Ministry and the Central Vigilance Commission to close this complaint without investigation as part of the cover-up of all complaints against GE. This evidence has emerged on the record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 in the affidavits and documents filed by the CVC and the Railway Ministry.

It is submitted that evidence of a cover-up by the Government leads to the inference that there is something to hide and the Government did not want to investigate this complaint in accordance with law because the documentary evidence in its possession is harmful to GE.

The Appellant narrated her eye-witness account in the rejoinder affidavits filed by her on July 9, 2012 and on July 23, 2012 and in particular on the correspondence between the her and General Electric exchanged during and after General Electric's purported internal investigation. The appellant also filed a detailed affidavit running into 55 pages exclusively addressing the facts and evidence in connection with her complaint of forgery on October 11, 2012. This affidavit describes in detail the events of July 8, 9, and 10, 2010, the weekend before July 12, 2010 when the technical bid was submitted by General Electric for the Marhowra tender and when the forgery took place.  

The brief details of the Appellant's complaint with a brief narration of facts concerning the forgery

The Appellant worked for General Electric as Legal Counsel during May, June, July, August and September 2010, and was involved in the preparation of General Electric's RFQ application dated July 12, 2010 which included the tampered document. Therefore the petitioner's evidence is based upon her personal knowledge of the facts. General Electric had a customer certificate that Kazakhstan Railway had issued to General Electric around December 2009/ January 2010. General Electric needed to submit this document in original to the Railway Ministry along with General Electric's technical bid for the 2010 Marhowra tender in order to satisfy the RFQ technical capacity eligibility criteria (in particular the requirement that the prior locomotive sales should have had at least two variants which the RFQ defined as gauge variations or service application variations). This customer certificate from Kazakhstan Railway was undated and therefore non-compliant with the format for customer certificates prescribed in the RFQ. This fact that the certificate was non-compliant was pointed out by the petitioner to colleagues at General Electric at the end of June 2010 (the RFQ application was due on July 12, 2010).

Unknown to the petitioner, sometime between the end of June 2010 and July 9, 2010, General Electric executives/ employees (including Pratyush Kumar, Ashfaq Nainar, Gaurav Negi. Ramesh Mathur,Ashish Malhotra and Praveena Yagnambhat) entered into a criminal conspiracy to add a false date to the undated customer certificate and to submit this altered and therefore forged document along with General Electric's RFQ application to the Railway Ministry on July 12, 2010. The petitioner states that this conspiracy was carried out and the document that was submitted by General Electric to the Railway Ministry on July 12, 2010 as part of General Electric's RFQ for the 2010 Marhowra tender as the customer certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway was a tampered and forged document. The document submitted was the original copy of the Kazakhstan Railway certificate that General Electric obtained in December 2009/ January 2010. This document was altered and a false date (July 7, 2010) was added to this undated document by the hand of one of the General Electric executives involved in the criminal conspiracy. This altered and forged document was then submitted to the Indian Railway on July 12, 2010 with General Electric's RFQ application. 

As part of this conspiracy, an elaborate and detailed fraud was perpetrated by these General Electric executives (with other unknown co-conspirators) whereby a record was created in internal General Electric emails that these executives had obtained a fresh customer certificate from Kazakhstan Railway which was compliant (dated), and that a scanned copy of this new certificate would be submitted by General Electric, and that the Railway Ministry had approved the submission of a scanned copy instead of the original document.

In reality, the afore-mentioned General Electric executives altered the old Kazakhstan Railway certificate (which did not have a date) and added a false date (July 7, 2010) to that document. This tampered/ forged document was then slipped into General Electric's RFQ application just before it was sent for binding. No one else in General Electric, except those involved in this conspiracy, would ever have known which document was eventually submitted by General Electric. Also, the Railway Ministry would have accepted the altered / forged document as an original certificate and would never have raised any questions.  It is also possible that the General Electric executives involved in the conspiracy intended to claim that the new original document from Kazakhstan Railways (which had been purportedly couriered) had been delivered sometime during the weekend of 10 and 11 July 2010 and that this document had been substituted in place of the scanned copy. As a result, even the internal General Electric record would have shown that General Electric had submitted an original copy of a compliant certificate.

This conspiracy was foiled as a result of the petitioner recording on email on the   morning of July 10, 2010 that the General Electric team consider including both documents in its RFQ application, i.e., the alleged scanned copy of the fresh certificate and the undated original document. As the undated original document had already been tampered, it was no longer possible for the General Electric executives (involved in the forgery) to include it. The plan was also foiled because the petitioner looked through the bound RFQ application on July 10, 2010 and saw that this compilation included an "original certificate" from Kazakhstan Railway that bore the date July 7, 2010. As a result of the petitioner having seen evidence of the forgery, she was drugged during the weekend of July 10 and 11, 2010 by/ at the behest of these General Electric executives. She was also bullied, harassed and an attempt made to get her to participate in an unlawful act (as described in the affidavit dated October 11, 2012 filed on the forgery issue) which could then be used to blackmail the petitioner. After July 12, 2010, the petitioner was again drugged/ poisoned while these General Electric executives participated in a further conspiracy to eliminate the petitioner and to remove her by having her contract with General Electric terminated. The petitioner was finally able to report this forgery only on October 1, 2010 to the General Counsel for General Electric Company after her contract with General Electric had been terminated in violation of whistleblower non-retaliation laws and policies. Since then, the petitioner has been subjected to further poisoning and drugging and her complaint of this forgery has been covered up by General Electric. The petitioner's life remains in grave danger.

General Electric through Mr Alexander Dimitrief's letter dated February 3, 2011, claims that documentary evidence disproves the petitioner's complaint about the forgery. This is incorrect. The documentary evidence discussed in Alexander Dimitrief's letter is irrelevant. He states: "We have compared the printout of the certificate from the July 7 e-mail with GETI's copy of the Request for Qualification ("RFQ") submitted to Indian Railways and they are identical".

The petitioner submits that this does not establish that the certificate was not forged. Why would General Electric executives retain evidence of the forgery and of the tampered document on General Electric files? A close reading of Alexander Dimitrief's letter will establish that it does not provide any evidence to establish that the petitioner's complaint of forgery is without basis. The letter misrepresents and ignores the petitioner's written evidence and attempts to falsely suggest that the petitioner withdrew her complaint, whereas the petitioner did not.

The document that General Electric eventually submitted to the Railway Ministry on July 12, 2010 was not a scanned copy of the fresh customer certificate dated July 7, 2010. General Electric executives submitted the original   undated Kazakhstan Railway customer certificate after adding a false date to it. This is the document the petitioner saw in the bound RFQ application on July 10 and 11, 2010.  The evidence that the petitioner has shared in writing clearly shows the following:

i.        The document the petitioner saw in the RFQ compilation on the evening of 9 July 2010 contained a black and white copy of the Kazakhstan certificate. This was the final set that was supposed to have been sent for binding.
ii.       The bound set that the petitioner saw on 10 July 2010 contained an entirely different document (Kazakhstan certificate) that was in colour and looked like an original leading the petitioner to ask her colleagues at General Electric: "are you guys playing games with me?"
iii.      Ashish Malhotra (from General Electric) lied to the petitioner and told her that the coloured document had been present in the set the petitioner looked through on 9 July 2010. This is incorrect. The document the petitioner saw on 9 July 2010 was a black and white document that on the face of it looked like a copy.

The only relevant evidence of the forgery is the document on the files of the Railway Ministry, i.e., the document General Electric actually submitted. The petitioner submits that a perusal of this document by this court will establish that the document General Electric submitted was the original undated Kazakhstan Railway customer certificate with a false date. Any reasonable person wanting to investigate this forgery would look to the relevant documentary evidence available with the Government. Why does General Electric not want that evidence examined?  The petitioner has described the events of 10 and 11 July 2010 in great detail in writing. There is hard evidence of the events of 10 and 11 July 1010 that have been described by the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner has also detailed the conspiracy to cover up this forgery that was put into effect afterwards.

Ms. Sapra made the following complaint to General Electric Company on 1.10.2010

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Subject: more information about week before D loco RFQ submission
To: "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>
Cc: "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Plimpton, Tara (GE Infra, Transportation, US)" <tara.plimpton@ge.com>,deepak.adlakha@ge.comjames.winget@ge.com, "Denniston, Brackett (GE, Corporate)" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>
Jeff,
I have been spending a lot of time going over events from my time at GE. There   is an important issue about which I now have doubts in my mind.
In my review of the Diesel Loco RFQ (due on 12 July 2010), I found that some customer certs were deficient. I also raised and communicated concerns that the certs might not adequately meet the technical capacity pre-qualification criteria in the RFQ. All this is on record.

Week of 5th July 2010
In the last week before the submission date, during a meeting where Vinod Sharma ( an external consultant) was also present, Prat and Ash took the decision to submit scanned copies of a couple of certs as the originals were not available. This according to them was the only available option at that time. I pointed out then (as I had before and did again subsequently), that the RFQ required originals and there was a risk of disqualification without originals. Mr Sharma agreed with me on the need for originals and said efforts must be made to get originals but if these did not arrive in time then scanned copies were the best option. Later that evening, Prat and Ash assured me that they would record their decision as a business decision.    

My advice to Ashish all through the last week was to delay binding and wait for   the originals. I emailed and spoke to Tara and Jamie about this issue. And I also spoke to Deepak on Friday evening. The papers were sent for binding on Friday late evening. Earlier in the evening Ashish had given me the original set to review and it had two scanned certs, the Vale and the Kazakhstan cert. Both of these were black and white copies.

Weekend (10 & 11 July 2010)
On Saturday morning I sent an email on this issue because I was concerned and because Deepak had given some advice. This email is on record. Deepak called me on Saturday and told me to now leave the issue/ decision to Prat and Ash. 

I went into office on Saturday later and saw the bound version. I was surprised to find the Kazakhstan cert (one of the missing originals) in color. It looked like the original. I asked Ashish and Ramesh (I do not remember if Praveena was in the room) "Are you guys playing games with me?" Basically I asked them have you got the original because you told me it had not arrived. Ashish told me this was a color printout. I said I got confused. It looked like an original. I asked Ashish where did you get this. He said they had a color scan and they decided to take a color printout.

Prat came in later and Ashish told him Seema had gotten confused about the color printout.
Even though Ashish told me this was a color print-out, I now have doubts about this. Prat and Ash were very angry about my Saturday email. There was a lot of tension because of my email.

On Sunday, Ash tried to trap me into getting a non-compliant Power of Attorney (POA) as he raised a big hue and cry about a small mistake in the POA. I refused to get the non-compliant POA and insisted that use the document we had.  [This was confirmed by three lawyers, Amit Kumar (Amarchand), Deepak Adlakha and I. All three were of the view that there was no defect in the POA we had.] When I said the existing POA was OK, Ash got upset and said I had been going on for weeks about the customer certs and now I was not concerned about the POA.

On Sunday, Praveena claimed to have found a notary on the internet who could notarise a new POA. Ash and Praveena wanted to send an office assistant to this notary. I said I would go myself as I wanted to make sure it was all genuine. I found the notary set-up a con and refused to get a new POA from there. Despite my telling Ash (I called Ash from the notary's office) my concerns about this notary, he suggested I get the document and then we could decide. I refused and said the existing POA could be used. Later I found a genuine stamp paper vendor who issued stamp paper on Sunday. I also located a genuine notary who could notarise the POA. When I asked Ash to send his car for the stamp paper, Prat stepped in, called up Amit Kumar (Amarchand) and decided we did not need a new POA. I think there was an attempt to harass me over a minor defect in the POA and to trap me into getting a non-compliant POA. Did Praveena really find the con notary on the internet on Sunday? Was this a pre-planned conspiracy? Was this intended to deflect my attention from the customer cert issue?
Prat bullied and humiliated me in front of everyone on Sunday over other issues   (i.e., me questioning Ramesh sending out E Loco RFP queries to the Government without review) leading me to tell him I would resign. Deepak called me about this on Sunday evening.
I have given these and subsequent events a lot of thought in the past few weeks.
I am concerned about the Kazakhstan cert that was submitted. Was it a color print-out of a color scan like I was told? The earlier scan I had seen was in black and white. Was this a doctored/ manipulated document?
It is important that GE ascertain whether the scan was in color or not? Where did the color printout come from?
Were Prat and Ash intending to pass off the Kazakhstan cert submitted as original? Was this why my email of Saturday made them so angry?
If the color copy filed is not a genuine print-out of a genuine color scanned copy then the document could be seen as a forgery. GE must inform the Government about any such forgery.
I have another concern about this weekend.
My email stopped working after my Saturday morning email. I tried to resolve the problem on the phone with Varun (IT) on Saturday but could not. He could not explain why my connection to the GE servers was down. There was something wrong about my IP address. My email started working again on Monday morning on its own. Did someone deliberately interfere with my network connectivity? Why was my connection down on Saturday and Sunday.
Incidentally, all through this weekend, I had severe lower back pain and was on pain-killers.
All of this also happened soon after I had spoken to Radhika about Prat and Praveena and after I suspect Radhika warned Praveena.
Some other thoughts:
Prat, Ash, Ramesh and Praveena's entire interaction with me as legal counsel for GE was in bad faith.
While I was still at AIFACS I noticed how anxious Prat, Ash, Ramesh and Praveena became when I started talking about raising concerns.
I can prove everything that happened on a day-to-day basis.  There are so many people who can bear me out on facts. But no one in GE was interested in listening to what happened. GE's response was to push me out, move me to Gurgaon and then to ask me to leave.  The paramount concern of people I tried to speak to was that nothing should come in the way of the D loco deal. And since Prat was not working well with me, I should be removed from the role.
Thanks,
Seema
-
Seema Sapra

Ms. Seema Sapra made the following complaint to the Railway Ministry on 23.12.2010.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Subject: GE's RFQ for Marhowra Project
Attn:
Shri Santosh Sinha                                                                                                            Director (Mech Engg)/ Works
Room No. 312A, Rail Bhawan
Ministry of Railways, Rafi Marg
New Delhi 110001
Fax: 011 23386693
Ref: RFQ for Diesel Locomotive factory at Marhowra submitted by GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd
Dear Shri Santosh Sinha,
I was employed as Legal Counsel with GE Transportation in India at their Rafi Marg office between April 2010 and September 2010. I am writing in connection with the RFQ Application submitted by GE for the Marhowra project on 12 July 2010.
This application contained a customer certificate from Kazakhstan railways. I would like to bring to your notice that the Kazakhstan certificate submitted is not an original copy. GE received the original of this certificate a few days after the RFQ was submitted on 12 July. I have reasons to suspect that the copy filed was faked to look like an original. I believe that GE might have had a scanned copy of the original sent on email. However, I suspect that this scanned copy was modified to look like an original and therefore a faked certificate was submitted along with the RFQ.
I request you to investigate this matter thoroughly. I had communicated my concern to GE on 1 October 2010. Since then, GE has not confirmed to me that the certificate filed was not forged. I have shared the reasons for my concern with GE senior management and attorneys in their headquarters in the United States.
As a lawyer who was involved in the preparation of the RFQ application and as a citizen of  India, I have a legal right to know if the certificate was forged. If it was forged, then I believe criminal offences have been committed. Further GE is liable to be disqualified from the tender process. I request the Railway Authorities to ascertain the truth from GE and kindly let me know. I am copying GE on this request.
Kind Regards,
Seema Sapra
Advocate
G-4 First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi 110014
Ph. 99588 69955
Copy to:
John Flannery
GE India Industrial Private Limited
Building 7A, 5th Floor
Sector 25A, DLF Cyber City
Phase III, Gurgaon
Haryana 122 022

Ms. Seema Sapra made the following complaint to Indian Government authorities on 11.1.2011 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:18 PM
Subject: GE's RFQ for Marhowra Project
Dr. Ahluwali and Mr. Haldea,
I am a lawyer and have brought a possible forgery to the notice of the Railway Board in respect of the RFQ submitted by GE for the diesel locomotive factory (Marhowra) project. My email to the Railway Board is set out below.
I request that this matter be looked into. I request that the Government obtain a clarification from GE about this issue.
Regards,
Seema Sapra

From: Seema Sapra [mailto:seema.sapra@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:35 AM
Subject: GE's RFQ for Marhowra Project
Attn:
Shri Santosh Sinha                                                                                                            Director (Mech Engg)/ Works
Room No. 312A, Rail Bhawan
Ministry of Railways, Rafi Marg
New Delhi 110001
Fax: 011 23386693
Ref: RFQ for Diesel Locomotive factory at Marhowra submitted by GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd
 Dear Shri Santosh Sinha,
 I was employed as Legal Counsel with GE Transportation in India at their Rafi Marg office between April 2010 and September 2010. I am writing in connection with the RFQ Application submitted by GE for the Marhowra project on 12 July 2010.
This application contained a customer certificate from Kazakhstan railways. I would like to bring to your notice that the Kazakhstan certificate submitted is not an original copy. GE received the original of this certificate a few days after the RFQ was submitted on 12 July. I have reasons to suspect that     the copy filed was faked to look like an original. I believe that GE might have had a scanned copy of the original sent on email. However, I suspect that this scanned copy was modified to look like an original and therefore a faked certificate was submitted along with the RFQ.
I request you to investigate this matter thoroughly. I had communicated my concern to GE on 1 October 2010. Since then, GE has not confirmed to me that the certificate filed was not forged. I have shared the reasons for my concern with GE senior management and attorneys in their headquarters in the United States.
As a lawyer who was involved in the preparation of the RFQ application and as a citizen of  India, I have a legal right to know if the certificate was forged. If it was forged, then I believe criminal offences have been committed. Further GE is liable to be disqualified from the tender process. I request the Railway Authorities to ascertain the truth from GE and kindly let me know. I am copying GE on this request.
Kind Regards,
Seema Sapra
Advocate
G-4 First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi 110014
Ph. 99588 69955
Copy to:
John Flannery
GE India Industrial Private Limited
Building 7A, 5th Floor
Sector 25A, DLF Cyber City
Phase III, Gurgaon
Haryana 122 022

Ms Seema Sapra received the following communication from the Central Vigilance Commission dated 30.5.2011.
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
Telegraphic Address:
"SATTARKA: New Delhi
E-Mail Address
Website
EPABX
24651001 – 07
Fax: 24616286

Satarka Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex,
Block A, INA, New Delhi 110023
No. 1117/RLY/16/130260
Dated 30.05.2011

To,
Smt. Seema Sapra,
Advocate,
G-4 First Floor
Jangpura Extesion
New Delhi – 110014

Sub: Complaint against Railway official
Ref:  Your e-mail letter dated 11.01.2011

Sir,
Your e-mail complaint has been registered as complaint no. 107/11/1 and has been forwarded to Shri A.K. Maitra, Advisor (Vig), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi for investigation and submission of a report within three months from the date of receipt of Commission's reference.
2. The Commission would be obtaining a report from the department in due course. If you wish to see the status of your e-mail complaint, you may log on to the Commission's website http://www/cvc/nic/in by entering the complaint number given above, in the field complaint status. The current status of your complaint would be displayed on the screen.
                                                                             Yours faithfully
(SK Gwaliya)
Section Officer

Notice was issued to the CVC and the Railway Ministry (among others) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 on 7.3.2012.
The following statement was made in the affidavit dated 2.7.2012 filed for the Railway Ministry.
That the Central Vigilance Commission vide its letter No. 1117/RLY/16/124624 dated 11.04.2011 had forwarded to Railway Board a copy of email complaint dated 11.01.2011 received in the Commission from Ms. Seema Sapra, Advocate, New Delhi in which the complainant alleged that fake Customer Certificate was submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt/ Ltd. in connection with Request for Qualification (RFQ) for setting up Diesel Locomotive Factory at Marhowra, District – Saran, Bihar. On receipt of the complaint, the matter was got thoroughly investigated and the investigation has revealed that Clause 3.2 related to 'Technical Capacity', inter-alia, mentioned that the applicant firm should have manufactured and supplied at least 1000 Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over the period of last ten years. Scrutiny of the tender file revealed that as per the Customers' Certificate attached at page 63 to 113 of the RFQ submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd.,  the company had designed, manufactured and supplied total 2326 mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over a period of last ten years. Thus, it is noticed that even if the Customer Certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway for 10. No. of locomotives supplied by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd., is discarded, the firm was fulfilling the Technical Capacity" criteria, as the requirement as per clause 3.2 of the RFQ is only 1000 locomotives over the period of last ten years. Thus, investigation has found that the firm M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no substance was     found in the allegation. The report of investigation was sent to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission after perusal of the Investigation Report and the comments of the administrative authorities thereon has advised closure of the case vide CVC's ID No. 1117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure-R-1).

CVC document produced along with Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

The Commission has perused the investigation report and the comments of the administrative authorities thereon. In agreement with the RB(Vigilance), the Commission would advise closure of the complaint case.

2. Railway Board's ID No./2011/VC/RB/10-CVC dated 12.02.2011 refers and its file is sent herewith.

(R.C. Arora)
Director

Railway Board (Shri AK Maitra, Advisor(Vig.) New Delhi.
CVC's ID No. 1117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.2011

Note that the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012 establishes the following:
The complaint of forgery was not investigated.
The Railway Ministry misled the Delhi High Court that General Electric did not need the Kazakhstan Railway certificate to qualify.
The only finding of the "investigation" was that according to the Railway Ministry, General Electric did not benefit from submitting the Kazakhstan Certificate and that even if that certificate is discarded, General Electric fulfilled the technical capacity criteria.   
It was on this basis that the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2013 stated the following:
"Thus, investigation has found that the firm M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no substance was found in the allegation."

Two-point response to this affidavit of the Railway Ministry
i.        General Electric did need the Kazakhstan certificate to qualify, therefore this certificate could not be discarded.  General Electric did therefore benefit from filing this certificate.
iii.     The complaint of forgery has not been investigated.

In her response, the Petitioner also pointed out that the only document produced with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012 was the CVC document dated 19.9.2011 which did not shed any light on the matter. The Petitioner had therefore submitted in her subsequent applications and affidavits that the Railway Ministry and the CVC be directed to produce the actual investigation report.
Another affidavit dated 1.14.2013 was filed for the Railway Ministry. In this affidavit, the following statement was made in paragraph 172:
"A true copy of the advice received from the Central Vigilance Commission and a true copy of the brief on the investigation conducted by the Railway Board (Vigilance) on the complaint dated 11.01.2011 made by the Petitioner to the CVC are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-10 (Colly)."

Attached to this affidavit as Annexure R-10 (Colly) were three documents. These are reproduced below.
URGENT
COURT CASE
F.No.2011/VC/RB/10-CVC
Sub:   PIL filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi titled Seema Sapra Vs Union of India & others. W.P.(C)No.1280/2012 (PIL).
Ref:   EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012
          A brief on the investigation conducted by Railway board Vigilance on the complaint dated 11.01.2011 made by Ms. Seema Sapra, Advocate to CVC is enclosed as desired.
(R.V.Nair)
JDV(Int.)
25.06.2012
Adv.(Vig.)
EDME(Proj.)
  
BRIEF ON THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY RAILWAY BOARD VIGILANCE ON THE COMPLAINT MADE TO CVC BY MS. SEEMA SAPRA, ADVOCATE.
Central Vigilance Commission vide its letter No.1117/RLY/15/124624 dated 11.04.2011 had forwarded to Railway Board  a copy of e-mail complaint dated 11.01.2011 received in the Commission from Ms. Seema Sapra, advocate, New Delhi in which the complainant alleged that fake Customer Certificate was submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. in connection with Request for Qualification (RFQ) for setting up Diesel Locomotive Factory at Marhowra - District Saran, Bihar.

Investigation has revealed that Clause 3.2 related to 'Technical Capacity", inter alia mentioned that the applicant firm should have manufactured and supplied at   least 1000 Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over the period of last ten years.

Scrutiny of the tender file revealed that as per the Customers' Certificate attached at page 63 to 113 of the RFQ, M/s GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. had designed, manufactured and supplied total 2326 mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over a period of last ten years. Thus, it is noticed that even if the Customer Certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway for 10. No. of locomotives supplied by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. is discarded, the firm was fulfilling the "technical Capacity" criteria, as the requirement as per clause 3.2 of the RFQ is only 1000 locomotives over the period of last ten years. Thus, investigation has found that the firm M/S. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no substance was found in the allegation.
The Central Vigilance Commission after perusal of the Investigation Report and   the comments of the administrative authorities thereon has advised closure of the case vide CVC/s ID No. 1117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.2011.

The third document was the CVC communication dated 19.9.2011 which has already been reproduced above.
Now this CVC document dated 19.9.2011 refers to four documents :-
(i) an investigation report
(ii) comments of the administrative authorities on the investigation report
(iii) a communication from the RB(Vigilance)
(iv) Communication carrying Railway Board's ID No./2011/VC/RB/10-CVC and dated 12.02.2011
None of these four documents mentioned in the CVC communication have been produced along with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14.1. 2013.
Instead there is an unsigned note which verbatim repeats what was stated in the first Railway Ministry affidavit of 2.7.2012. This unsigned note is titled "BRIEF ON THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY RAILWAY BOARD VIGILANCE ON THE COMPLAINT MADE TO   CVC BY MS. SEEMA SAPRA, ADVOCATE". This note refers to a Central Vigilance Commission letter No.1117/RLY/15/124624 dated 11.04.2011 which "had forwarded to Railway Board a copy of e-mail complaint dated 11.01.2011 received in the Commission from Ms. Seema Sapra, advocate,"
Note the discrepancy here. The CVC note of 19.9.2011 which is relied upon to support the closure of the case refers to a Railway Board letter with ID No./2011/VC/RB/10-CVC and dated 12.02.2011.
How did the Railway Board write to the CVC about this complaint (and recommend closure on 12.02.2011)  when the unsigned note titled "BRIEF ON THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY RAILWAY BOARD VIGILANCE ON THE COMPLAINT MADE TO CVC BY MS. SEEMA SAPRA, ADVOCATE" claims that it received the complaint from the CVC on 11.04.2011?
The other document produced with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14.1.2013 is an internal Railway Ministry communication dated 25.06.2012 enclosing the unsigned note and referring to it as the "EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012".
So the Railway Ministry has not produced any report of investigation carried out by its vigilance department or by the CVC.
All it has produced is an unsigned note referred to as the EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012. EDME refers to Executive Director Mechanical Engineering. Even the name of the officer who has allegedly written this note is not provided.
So there is no investigation report. Instead the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14.1.2013 attempts to misrepresent and pass off an anonymous unsigned note referred to as the EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012 as the investigation report of the vigilance branch. Note that the Executive Director Mechanical Engineering is not part of the vigilance department.
So it is clear that there has been no investigation by the CVC or Railway Vigilance on the complaint of forgery. Forged and fraudulent documents suggesting this have been filed with the Railway Ministry affidavits dated 2.7.2012 and 14.1.2013.
False and perjurious statements have been made in these affidavits lying to the Court that the forgery complaint was investigated and that the CVC approved of the investigation and recommended closure of the case.
These false statements include the following false statement made in para 196 of the affidavit dated 14.1.2013:
"it is respectfully submitted that the summary of the investigation report by the Vigilance Directorate, as endorsed by the CVC, has been placed before the Hon'ble Court. In terms of the recommendation, the case has been closed."
The complaint of forgery was not investigated either by the Railway Ministry Vigilance Department or by the Central Vigilance Commission. Instead the attempt has been to cover up this matter and to avoid an investigation into the complaint of forgery.

General Electric did need the Kazakhstan Railways certificate qualify.
Clause 3.2.1 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ
"Subject to the provisions of Clause 2.2, the Applicant shall:
a) over the period of last ten (10) years, have manufactured and supplied at least 1000 Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives and:
i. such Locomotives should comprise at least 2 Variants; a Variant for the purpose of this RFQ Document shall mean a Locomotive with different gauge or with different service application;
ii. the supply of such Locomotives should have been to three (3) or more countries;
iii. 200 or more of such Diesel Electric Locomotives should be of 4000 HP (or higher) with AC-AC 3-phase and IGBT technology; iv. 25 or more of such Diesel Electric Locomotives should be of 6000 HP (or higher)"
Thus the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2,7.2012 falsely stated that General Electric only needed evidence of manufacture and supply of 1000 mainline Diesel Electric locomotives. As is clear from Clause 3.2.1 (reproduced above), a bidder also needed to provide customer certificates to show that it met the other conditions/ criteria prescribed in Clause 3.2.1. The 1000 locomotives relied upon by a bidder needed to have at least two variants. These locomotives should have been supplied to at least three countries. 200 of these locomotives should have been of at least 4000 HP with AC-AC 3-phase and IGBT technology. And at least 25 of these locomotives should have been of at least 6000 HP.

While General Electric did not need the Kazakhstan Railways customer certificate to certify the requirement for prior manufacture and supply of 1000 locomotives, it did need this certificate to meet the requirement that these locomotives should comprise of two variants (i.e., locomotives with either gauge variations or service application variations). General Electric did not meet the requirement for two variants prescribed by Clause 3.2.1 without the Kazakhstan Railways customer certificate which covered a gauge variant. This was also the internal understanding in General Electric and is recorded on internal General Electric emails.

Further the submission of a forged certificate amounted to a material misrepresentation under clause 2.7.3 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ and a fraudulent practice under clause 4.1.3 (b) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ. The submission of a forged/ tampered customer certificate therefore rendered General Electric liable for mandatory disqualification and blacklisting for a period of two years (Clause 4.1.1 and Clause 4.1.2 of the RFQ).  It also amounts to the criminal offence of forgery under both Indian and US law.    

The Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji who wrongly dismissed Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 did not permit the petitioner to argue the matter at all. The Petitioner was unable to even mention the issue of the forgery complaint during the four hearings on 19, 20, 22 January and 3 February 2015 before this Bench, leave alone argue.

Yet without even hearing the petitioner on this issue or indeed hearing anyone else, or examining the court record, or considering the affidavits filed by the petitioner, the judgment dated 2.3.2015 issued by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji includes the following statement:
In fact, the petitioner had filed a complaint with CVC with regard to some of her allegations made in this petition, and the records of this court show that after replying to the petitioner that the complaint has been looked into, CVC ultimately had advised closure of the case and this is so stated in the counter- affidavit of respondents no. 2 and 4/Railways dated 2.7.2012 and the relevant para of the counter-affidavit is para 3 which reads as under:-
"3. That the Central Vigilance Commission vide its letter No. 1117/RLY/16/124624 dated 11.04.2011 had forwarded to Railway Board a copy of e-mail complaint dated 11.01.2011 received in the Commission from Ms. Seema Sapra, Advocate, New Delhi in which the complainant alleged that fake Customer Certificate was submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. in connection with Request for Qualification (RFQ) for setting up Diesel Locomotive Factory at Marhowra, District - Saran, Bihar. On receipt of the complaint, the matter was got thoroughly investigated and the     investigation has revealed that Clause 3.2 related to "Technical Capacity', inter-alia, mentioned that the applicant firm should have manufactured and supplied at least 1000 Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over the period of last ten years. Scrutiny of the tender file revealed that as per the Customers' Certificate attached at page 63 to 113 of the RFQ submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd., the company had designed, manufactured and supplied total 2326 mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over a period of last ten years. Thus, it is noticed that even if the Customer Certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway for 10 No. of locomotives supplied by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. is discarded, the firm was fulfilling the 'Technical Capacity' criteria, as the requirement as per clause 3.2 of the RFQ is only 1000 locomotives over the period of last ten years. Thus, investigation has found that the firm M/s. Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no substance was found in the allegation. The report of investigation was sent to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission after perusal of the Investigation Report and the comments of the administrative authorities thereon has advised closure of the case vide CVC's ID No. 117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.20111 (Annesure R-1)." (underling added)
  
This is the only reference in the judgment to the court record and it refers to and relies upon a patently false statement made in the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012. This statement has been included in the judgment without hearing the petitioner, without examining the court record, and without considering the affidavits of the petitioner and her submissions therein.
The result is that this judgment which expressly refuses to look at the court record and states this at more than one place, picks up a portion of a Railway Affidavit that amounts to perjury and inserts it into the judgment as if this were a finding of the Court, without hearing the parties.
As elaborated hereinabove, this statement in the Railway Ministry affidavit was not only false but perjurious, intended to mislead the Court, and based upon fabricated documents.
There has been no CVC investigation into the complaint of forgery.
Once again the judgment issued by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Tegi is deeply flawed. The result is a cover-up of the corruption complaints against General Electric including this particular complaint of forgery. 



A copy of Civil Application No. 7197 of 2013 filed before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is attached using Google drive. A copy of my contempt appeal pending before the Supreme Court of India is attached.

Please also about me below.

Read below my curriculum vitae until before I ended up as a whistle-blower after working for General Electric in India briefly in 2010


Contact details

Twitter @SeemaSapraLaw


My other blogs

For more on General Electric corruption in India in connection with the Indian Rail tenders for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra and the proposed electric locomotive factory at Madhepura, see

http://generalelectric-seccomplaint.blogspot.in/ Whistleblower SEC complaint TCR1439646785831 against General Electric Company

http://generalelectricfakeauthoritydocs.blogspot.in/ Fake Authority Docs for General Electric Company filed in Delhi High Court

http://geimpersonationfraud.blogspot.in/ General Electric substituted fake representative/ signatory in Indian corruption legal case

http://geindiafakeauthoritydocs.blogspot.in/ Fake Authority Docs for GE India Industrial Private Limited filed in Delhi High Court

http://generalelectricforgery.blogspot.in/ General Electric forged Kazakhstan Rail customer cert for India Marhowra rail tender

http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/ evidence of attempts to eliminate Seema Sapra, General Electric Company whistleblower in India

http://gecorruption.blogspot.in/ FCPA alert- General Electric paid bribes to Indian public officials using third party contractor - Aartech Consultants India Private Limited

http://gemarhowracorruption.blogspot.in/ Corruption by PwC and General Electric Company in Marhowra diesel locomotive factory Project

http://gemarhowracorruptionpart2.blogspot.in/ Shakeel Ahmed, Indian Rail official corruptly vetted GE 2008 bid documents for Marhowra Project

http://gecorruptionpart2.blogspot.in/ General Electric corruptly obtained Indian Rail Marhowra Project bid docs before they were public

http://gecorruptionpart3.blogspot.in/ Wikileaks US Embassy cables on creation of Marhowra loco factory Project for General Electric

http://gecorruptionpart4.blogspot.in/ General Electric corruption & fraud to avoid mandatory disclosures in India tender

http://gecorruptionpart5.blogspot.in/ #FCPA Why is General Electric bidding for India electric loco tender which it does not manufacture

http://gemoneylaundering.blogspot.in/ Money laundering by General Electric using NDTV in India

http://propagandaoutfitlegallyindia.blogspot.in/ Clifford Chance funded Kian Ganz & Legally India website target General Electric whistleblower

http://seemasapra.blogspot.com/ Seema Sapra - General Electric corruption whistle-blower: the Truth prevails

http://seemasapralaw.blogspot.in/ Fair Comment on Law, Justice and other Stuff

http://seemasaprapictures.blogspot.in/ Pictures of General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra

http://solisorabjeealert.blogspot.in/     -  Seema Sapra's sexual harassment complaint against former Attorney General of India Soli J. Sorabjee

http://seemasapralegal.blogspot.in/ General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra being targeted in Delhi High Court

http://writpetitionrecordinwp1280of2012.blogspot.in/   -  Court Record in Seema Sapra's whistle-blower corruption case against General Electric Company

http://monteksinghahluwalia-alert.blogspot.com/    - Montek Singh Ahluwalia - an American spy and economic hit-man

http://sureshprabhu-alert.blogspot.in/ - The Scams, Corruption, Conflict of Interest & Benami Companies of Suresh Prabhu
                                                 
Work Experience

Legal Counsel for GE Transportation India in Delhi (2010 – 5 months)

Consultant to Microsoft India on Innovation & IP law and policy - 2009-2010 in Delhi (approx. six months)

Visiting fellow at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, 2008-2009, working on trade policy, climate change and energy policy  

Director – Trade & Policy, at Delhi office of law firm Amarchand Mangaldas, Suresh A. Shroff & Co, 2008. Worked on trade policy, competition policy, nuclear policy, investment policy, India's comprehensive economic cooperation agreements, anti-dumping.   

Visiting Fellow at the Institute of International Economic Law, Georgetown University Law Center in Washington DC 2004-2005, worked on trade and investment policy and law

Assisted GE India General Counsel, Ruby Anand as off-counsel from approx. 1999 till 2001

Associate in the office of Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General of India, 2000-2001 

Empaneled lawyer for the Government of India in the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi in 1999-2001

Lawyer with the litigation law firm of M/s Karanjawala & Co. in New Delhi, 1995-2000

Extensive litigation experience in the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, and various special tribunals.


Policy expertise
International Trade
Bilateral and regional trade agreements  
Investment policy, bilateral investment treaties  
Climate change and sustainable development
Energy efficiency and climate change
Innovation policy, technology transfer and intellectual property
Competition policy  





Teaching Experience

LLM tutor for the World Trade Law joint course at University College London and the School of Oriental and African Studies (2007)

Contract law tutor for 1st Year LLB at the University of Westminster, School of Law as a part-time visiting lecturer (2007)

Guest lectures for the LLM program at Kings College London and University of Leicester law school 

Education

PhD studies at Kings College London 2003-2007 (not completed)
Title of proposed thesis: The Place, Treatment, and Meaning of Development in the WTO
Research supervisor - Professor Piet Eeckhout, Kings College London
3 year research fellowship by the Centre for European Law, Kings College London

LLM in Public International Law with distinction at the University of Leicester, 2001-2003
British Chevening scholar

LLB from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi - Ist Division. 1995

Diploma in Environmental Law from the Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India -1994-1995

B. A. Honors in English Literature from St Stephen's College, University of Delhi - 1992

Editorial Assistant for the Journal of International Economic law, 2004-2005 based at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC

Internship with the United Nations Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania 2002-2003



Publications


Article titled "Sustainable Development and the role of the Indian Supreme Court", ASERI (Milan) publication, 2009 

Article titled "An Agenda for Teaching International Economic Law in Indian Law Schools", Indian Journal of International Economic Law, 2009, National Law School, Bangalore

Article titled "The WTO System of Trade Governance: The Stale NGO Debate and the Appropriate Role for Non-state actors" in Oregon Review of International Law Journal, volume 11 issue 1, 2009

Chapter titled 'Domestic Politics and the Search for a New Social Purpose of Governance for the WTO: A Proposal for a Declaration on Domestic Consultation' in Debra Steger (ed.) Redesigning the World Trade Organization for the Twenty-first Century, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2009

Chapter titled 'New Agendas for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Including an Agenda in Support of Reform'  in Colin B. Picker, Isabella Bunn & Douglas Arner, (ed.) INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW - THE STATE & FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE, Hart Publishing, 2008

'Ideas of Embedded Liberalism and Current and Future Challenges for the WTO',  in Ortino and Ripinsky, WTO Law and Process, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007. pg 330 - 352

Development: Its Place, Treatment, and Meaning at the WTO / Seema Sapra (2006). In: Proceedings of the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, Vol. 100, pg 223-226


Papers / Conferences 

Presented paper titled "An Indian perspective on sustainable development: the role of the Indian higher judiciary" at panel discussion at ASERI, Milan in December 2008

Panelist for EDGE network panel on WTO Institutional Reform at the Inaugural conference of the Society for International Economic Law, Geneva, 15-17 July 2008

Presented paper titled "Developing Countries and Outreach to Non-State Actors in the WTO", at an EDGE network project workshop on WTO institutional reform in March 2008 at Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, Ontario. 

Presented paper titled "The Case for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Possible Agendas Including an Agenda in Support of Reform"  at the Annual Conference of the International Economic Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law at Bretton Woods in November, 2006

Panelist at the sixth Annual WTO Conference hosted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in May 2006, on the topic "Doha Development Round: Current and Future Challenges"

Presented paper titled "Development - Its Place, Treatment and Meaning at the WTO" at the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington D.C. 2006.

Presented paper titled "Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law" at the Institute of International Economic Law (IIEL), Georgetown University Law Center in September 2005

Presented paper titled "Constructivism and Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law" at the 2005 conference of the International Law Association, British Branch held at Edinburgh in May 2005



Memberships
Bar Council of Delhi
Society of International Economic Law
Asian WTO Research Network










  31 VOL-22 CM 7197 of 2013 subversion of writ by...





















































































































No comments:

Post a Comment