---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:32 AM
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
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>
Message to US President Donald Trump
Dear President Donald Trump,
I am a General Electric Company whistleblower in India who is being 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.
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. This was attempted murder. The intent is to cause death by causing airway obstruction and paralysis of the heart muscles. I am being surveilled, followed and targeted 24/7.
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
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.
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.
/railwayboard/uploads/
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.
· 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.
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.
· 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
Posted Friday October 3, 2008 at 12:46 AM IST http://www.livemint.com/
· 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:
· 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
· 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
· 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/
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.
· 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.
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
|
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:
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 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.
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”.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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:
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 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.
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”.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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
Ms. Sapra made the following complaint to General Electric Company on 1.10.2010
Ms. Seema Sapra made the following complaint to the Railway Ministry on 23.12.2010.
Ms. Seema Sapra made the following complaint to Indian Government authorities on 11.1.2011
Ms Seema Sapra received the following communication from the Central Vigilance Commission dated 30.5.2011.
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.
CVC document produced along with Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012
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.
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.
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:
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-
http://
http://geimpersonationfraud.
http:// geindiafakeauthoritydocs. blogspot.in/ Fake Authority Docs for GE India Industrial Private Limited filed in Delhi High Court
http://generalelectricforgery.
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://
http://gecorruptionpart2.
http://gecorruptionpart3.
http://gecorruptionpart4.
http://gecorruptionpart5.
http://gemoneylaundering.
http://
http://seemasapra.blogspot. com/ Seema Sapra - General Electric corruption whistle-blower: the Truth prevails
http://seemasapralaw.blogspot.
http://seemasaprapictures.
http://solisorabjeealert. blogspot.in/ - Seema Sapra's sexual harassment complaint against former Attorney General of India Soli J. Sorabjee
http://seemasapralegal.
http://
http://monteksinghahluwalia-
http://sureshprabhu-alert.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment