From: Sapra Consultants <sapraconsultants@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:56 PM
Subject: New application filed today by General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra in the Supreme Court of India - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831
To: "sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in" <sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in>, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in" <sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in>, "president@whitehouse.gov" <president@whitehouse.gov>, "sho-gk-dl@nic.in" <sho-gk-dl@nic.in>, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, "sho-crpark-dl@nic.in" <sho-crpark-dl@nic.in>, "sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in" <sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in>, "EthicsAndCompliance@starbucks.com" <EthicsAndCompliance@starbucks.com>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in" <sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in>, "cp.ggn@hry.nic.in" <cp.ggn@hry.nic.in>, hschultz <hschultz@starbucks.com>, "chairmanoffice@sec.gov" <chairmanoffice@sec.gov>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "cp.amulyapatnaik@delhipolice.gov.in" <cp.amulyapatnaik@delhipolice.gov.in>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Suhel.Daud@ic.fbi.gov" <Suhel.Daud@ic.fbi.gov>, "cmdelhi@nic.in" <cmdelhi@nic.in>, "lggc.delhi@nic.in" <lggc.delhi@nic.in>, "ashish.sawkar@ic.fbi.gov" <ashish.sawkar@ic.fbi.gov>, "sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in" <sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in>, "lhelm@starbucks.com" <lhelm@starbucks.com>, "sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in" <sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in>, "jeff.immelt@ge.com" <jeff.immelt@ge.com>, "sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in" <sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "john.flannery@ge.com" <john.flannery@ge.com>, "sho-defenceclny-dl@nic.in" <sho-defenceclny-dl@nic.in>, "sumi.ghosh@starbucks.com" <sumi.ghosh@starbucks.com>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, sho-saket-dl@nic.in, sho-cp-dl@nic.in, "cvc@nic.in" <cvc@nic.in>, "advamit.sharma@gmail.com" <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, "kirti_uppal@yahoo.com" <kirti_uppal@yahoo.com>, Scba India <scbaec@gmail.com>, "mr@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mr@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "crb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <crb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, gopi krishnan <jgopikrishnan@yahoo.com>, rajiv.vc@nic.in, tmb.vc@nic.in, fmo@nic.in, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, Subramanian Swamy <swamy39@gmail.com>, Prashant Bhushan <prashantbhush@gmail.com>, pmosb <pmosb@gov.in>, Amit Shah <amitshah.bjp@gmail.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>, "delhihighcourt@nic.in" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, 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, zentrale@bundesnachrichtendienst.de, india@mofa.go.kr, consular2@newdelhi.mfa.gov.il, info@newdelhi.mfa.gov.il, mumbai@amchamindia.com, Directors@corporate.ge.com, npeltz@trianpartners.com
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEEMA SAPRA
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent
I N D E X
______________________________
Sl. No. PARTICULARS
______________________________
1. Application with prayer for recall of order dated 1-13
27 October 2017 appointing ASG Senior Advocate
Ms Pinky Anand as amicus in this matter with
affidavit
FILED BY:
SEEMA SAPRA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
DRAWN ON: 30.10.2017
FILED ON: 30.10.2017
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEEMA SAPRA
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent
To
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India., the application of the Appellant/ Petitioner most respectfully showeth :-
1. This matter was listed before Court on 27 October 2017 when the following order was passed.
| Heard. We request Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, to assist the Court as amicus in the matter. The Registry is directed to furnish a set of appeal papers to Ms. Pinky Anand. Post on Monday, the 20th November, 2017. |
2. Senior Advocate Ms Pinky Anand who was sitting in Court in the first row on the last date of hearing has been appointed as amicus in this matter. The Appellant objected in Court on that day to this involvement of Ms Pinky Anand in this matter and submitted that she would file an application objecting to this. The present application is therefore being filed seeking recall of this order dated 27 October 2017 appointing Ms Pinky Anand as amicus in this matter. This application seeks to place some relevant facts before this Hon'ble Court.
3. This is an appeal from a contempt conviction and involves issues concerning the life and liberty of the appellant. The Appellant is a whistleblower and a witness in corruption complaints against General Electric Company (GE) and she is being targeted and being chronically poisoned. Her life is in grave danger both from GE and from powerful elements within the Indian State which are being used to silence the appellant.
4. The Appellant has also made public complaints of sexual harassment against Senior Advocate Soli J Sorabjee and Advocate Mr Raian Karanjawala dating back to 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The Appellant has made a public complaint of sexual assault and attempted rape of the appellant by Soli Sorabjee (then Attorney General of India) after plying her with alcohol and drugging her in 2001, when she was working as junior in his office. Mr Soli J Sorabjee continued to sexually harass and pursue the appellant for several years after that. The appellant's life is in danger on both these counts.
5. The cover up of corruption by GE has involved a powerful coterie of politicians and lawyers including Arun Jaitley, Soli Sorabjee, Zia Mody, Mukul Rohatgi, Raian Karanjawala, Rajiv Nayar, Maninder Singh and A S Chandhiok. Major frauds have been committed on the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012, the whistleblower petition filed by the appellant against GE in the Delhi High Court. This powerful coterie of lawyers is also targeting the appellant and is involved in having her being poisoned and in ongoing attempts to eliminate her.
6. These powerful lawyers have also used their colleagues and friends in the legal profession to target the appellant, to defame her and to socially and professionally ostracize her.
7. Mr Soli Sorabjee personally threatened the appellant with harm in February/ March 2011 and told her to drop her complaints against GE. In January 2012, the appellant learnt that Zia Mody (Mr Soli Sorabjee's daughter) was advising GE as legal counsel on the whistleblower complaints of the appellant against GE. Ms Zia Mody's law firm AZB & Partners and her then colleague Mr Nanju Ganpathy have appeared before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 (filed by the appellant) as lawyers for 3 GE companies without valid vakalatnamas. They have enabled the filing of false, fraudulent and invalid authority documents and false and unauthorized affidavits before the Delhi High Court in this matter for GE and have enabled forgery, perjury, fraud on the court and unlawful and fraudulent impersonation of three GE companies before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 in order to cover up the whistleblower complaints of the appellant against GE as part of an obstruction of justice conspiracy. This evidence has been produced before this Hon'ble Court in the present appeal.
8. Mr Mukul Rohatgi's niece, a lawyer named Anupam Sanghi, was also used to threaten the appellant in 2011. She told the appellant on the phone that if the appellant was saying "everyone had harassed her", then "judges would harass" her if she went to Court.
9. Ms Pinky Anand is a close friend and confidante of Arun Jaitley, Soli Sorabjee, Zia Mody, Mukul Rohatgi, Raian Karanjawala, and Rajiv Nayar. She is particularly close to Mr Soli Sorabjee, Raian Karanjawala and to Mr Arun Jaitley. The appellant submits that if this Court asks Ms Pinky Anand to define her relationship with these lawyers, she will call them her friends.
10. See the following statement that appeared in an India Today news report dated 30 October 2014 titled "The Indispensable Mr Jaitley" available at http://indiatoday.intoday.in/
"Rohatgi, in fact, is not Jaitley's only friend in the Supreme Court. Solicitor-General Ranjit Kumar as well as all four Additional Solicitors General- Pinky Anand, Maninder Singh, Neeraj Kishan Kaul and P.S. Narasimha-are Jaitley acolytes, …."
11. Ms Pinky Anand has been openly hostile to the appellant for more than 5 years now because of the appellant's whistleblower complaints against GE, her complaints of fraud and obstruction of justice against lawyer Zia Mody, and her sexual harassment and sexual assault complaints against Soli Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala. Ms Pinky Anand has participated in the social and professional ostracization of the Petitioner for 5 years within the community of legal professionals. Ms Pinky Anand along with a group of lawyers has participated in hostile behaviour toward the petitioner which has demeaned, denigrated and dehumanized the petitioner. She has been part of a group of lawyers who have actively failed to treat the petitioner as a human being with human dignity, leave alone as a woman colleague and woman legal professional and advocate. Social and professional ostracization or boycott of a person by a community has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India as a violation of an individual's right to live with dignity. I have been subjected to a social and professional boycott by a group of lawyers including Ms Pinky Anand for almost 6 years.
12. Involving Ms Pinky Anand in this matter who has displayed a clear bias against the appellant and who is biased in favour of this coterie of powerful lawyers targeting the appellant (and which lawyers are also behind the threat to the life of the appellant) is akin to making these lawyers the arbiter of the appellant's fate and life.
13. The appellant has a reasonable apprehension of bias against Ms Pinky Anand based upon the influence of these lawyers and their close friendship with her. The petitioner apprehends that Ms Pinky Anand might be used to cover up corruption by GE, the frauds on the Delhi High Court facilitated by Ms Zia Mody, and to cover up the poisoning and targeting of the appellant-whistleblower. Ms Pinky Anand might be used to cover up the murder/ incapacitation of the appellant (if that happens during the pendency of this appeal) to prevent the appellant from pursuing this matter and her whistleblower complaints against GE. Ms Pinky Anand might be used to sabotage the defence of the appellant in this appeal by misrepresenting facts to this Hon'ble Court or by suppressing facts and documents that the appellant is relying upon. The appellant apprehends that Ms Pinky Anand will be influenced by Mr Soli Sorabjee, Mr Arun Jaitley, Mr Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Raian Karanjawala and will act as a proxy for these persons in this matter.
14. Ms Pinky Anand is a close friend of the lawyers from whom the appellant is facing a threat to her life. As such, it is submitted that it is against all principles of natural justice to appoint Ms Pinky Anand as amicus in the present matter,
15. Ms Pinky Anand has also been a prominent BJP member and continues to be one. She has been the party spokesperson for the BJP. The BJP government headed by Mr Modi is involved in the cover-up of the whistleblower complaints of the appellant against GE. GE is an influential American company which can influence political support for the BJP and for particular BJP politicians within the US establishment. The appellant has reason to believe that Ms Arun Jaitley has been instrumental in helping GE cover up the appellant's whistleblower complaints and in targeting and silencing the appellant.
16. In fact, the involvement of Ms Pinky Anand in this matter as amicus enhances the threat to the life of the appellant as this will make GE and these lawyers more aggressive and fearless in the targeting and poisoning of the appellant knowing that any harm caused to the appellant can then be covered up with the assistance of Ms Pinky Anand.
17. For these reasons, the appellant prays that this Hon'ble Court recall its order dated 27 October 2017 appointing Ms Pinky Anand in this matter as amicus.
18. It appears that Ms Pinky Anand, Mr Mukyl Rohatgi and his junior Mr Saurabh Kirpal manoeuvred to be present in court on 27 October 2017 during the hearing of this matter.
19. After the hearing of this matter on 27 October 2017, the appellant saw Mr Saurabh Kirpal laughing at the appellant with Ms Pinky Anand outside the Court. Mr Saurabh Kirpal was turning Ms Pinky Anand against the appellant by telling her that the appellant had been making complaints against Mr Arun Jaitley.
20. It is respectfully submitted that the rule, practice and protocol in contempt cases or contempt appeals in suo moto cases is for notice to go to the office of the Attorney General of India, who then assists the Court.
21. The appellant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may instead issue formal notice to the AG Mr K K Venugopal as per protocol, rules and practice.
22. Involvement of Ms Pinky Anand in this matter will violate the appellant's right to a fair and full hearing and her right to natural justice in this appeal. Involvement of Ms Pinky Anand in this matter will mean the denial of justice to the appellant.
23. The appellant also prays that since the very life of the appellant hangs in the balance here, this Hon'ble Court may please give her a full hearing in this matter/.
24. The appellant's right to life is being grossly violated on a daily basis, her life in in danger, and she is being poisoned with chemical poisonous and nerve agents. The appellant's life is hanging by a thread and because of the ongoing poisoning of the appellant, her dead body could be found any day. The appellant is being poisoned with nerve agents, anesthetic agents and poisonous chemical agents while sleeping in her car parked outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court almost every night. This happened on the previous night as well (intervening night of 29-30 October 2017). She is also being followed 24/7 and is being poisoned with chemicals in public spaces. The appellant is also being poisoned with chemicals inside the Delhi High Court and also inside the Supreme Court of India premises. In fact, even while drafting this application, today on 30 October 2017 sitting in the litigants' canteen inside the Supreme Court, the appellant has been targeted and poisoned with chemicals using court clerks, lawyers and even clients. This can only happen at the behest of these powerful lawyers acting under the protection of the Police.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Application and :-
(i) To recall its order dated 27 October 2017 appointing ASG Senior Advocate Ms Pinky Anand as amicus in this matter;
(ii) Issue formal notice as per rules, protocol and practice in suo moto contempt matters to the office of the Attorney General of India;
(iii) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT/ PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
SEEMA SAPRA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
DRAWN ON: 30/10.2017
FILED ON: 30/10/2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEE*MA SAPRA
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, aged 46 years, D/o Late A. R. Sapra, presently homeless in New Delhi, do hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:
1. That I am the Appellant/ Petitioner and am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case and am competent and authorized to swear this Affidavit.
2. That I have drafted, read and understood the accompanying Application for recall of order dated 27 October 2017 appointing ASG Ms Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate as amicus in this matter and I state that the contents of the application are based on my personal knowledge and on other sources which I believe to be true and correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.
Verified at New Delhi on this 30th day of October 2017.
DEPONENT
18 September 2017
To Prime Minister Narendra Modi,
A whistleblower writ petition was filed against the publicly-traded American corporation General Electric Company (GE) by its former legal counsel (Seema Sapra, and present Petitioner) in the Delhi High Court in February 2012.
The Delhi High Court issued notice to GE on this writ petition on 7 March 2012.
Lawyers appeared for GE from April 2012 until February 2015. These lawyers included Nanju Ganpathy and Manpreet Lamba, both at the time with the law firm AZB & Partners. Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar also appeared for GE.
Multiple affidavits were filed on behalf of GE. These affidavits were signed by a man named K R Radhakrishnan who claimed to be the Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited, a 100% subsidiary of GE. He claimed to be the authorized signatory of General Electric Company (GE).
No authority documents were filed by K R Radhakrishnan despite affidavits with voluminous annexures being filed. No vakalatnamas were filed for GE.
Seema Sapra obtained court orders directing that authority documents and vakalatnamas be filed for GE.
Finally, after being compelled by court orders, AZB & Partners filed what purported to be GE's authority documents for K R Radhakrishnan. Let us now turn to these authority documents that were produced before the Delhi High Court.
A photocopy of an alleged Power of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 allegedly executed by Mr. Alexander Dimitrief. A copy of this document is attached.
A photocopy of an alleged Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Mr. Bradford Berenson. A copy of this document is attached.
A copy of GE's Board Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009). as incorporated in the Board Minutes of General Electric Company. A copy of this document is attached. The authenticity and validity of this particular document is not in doubt.
The source of the power/ authority to represent GE is the Board Resolution. There is no doubt that a Power of Attorney issued in terms of authority granted by a Board Resolution, must comply with the terms of the Board Resolution. The source of authority is the Board Resolution, and any authorization document, including any power of attorney, that violates the Board Resolution, or exceeds the authority granted by the Board Resolution would be null and void, invalid and illegal. The authority of both Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson to execute any power of attorney in favor of K R Radhakrishnan to act as the authorized signatory of GE for the purposes of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 must be sourced and found within this Board Resolution. If the authority to execute the said Powers of Attorney cannot be found within the said Board resolution, then Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson have both exceeded the authority granted to them by this Board Resolution, and have violated the Board Resolution by executing these Powers of Attorney and consequently, both the Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2014 would be invalid, illegal and null and void.
Paragraph 2 of GE's Board Resolution No. 10855 states 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."
GE's Board Resolution No. 10855 contains a separate provision (Paragraph (H)) on all delegations of authority authorized by this Board Resolution. It reads:
"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."
Turning now to the scheme and structure of GE's Board Resolution No. 10855, the following points may be noted:
(i) After the initial introductory paragraphs, Paragraph (A) is the main clause of the Board Resolution setting out the general authority to execute "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" ,,, "on behalf of this Company".
(ii) It is submitted that the authority and power to execute a Vakalatnama (which is a specialized form of a power of attorney filed in Indian Courts to authorize a party's lawyer) for GE and to sign court pleadings for GE in general falls within the parameters of Paragraph (A).
(iii) Paragraph (A) also lists the individuals who have the authority to execute these documents. The first part of Paragraph (A) states that these documents may be executed "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."
(iv) The second part of Paragraph (A) has two components.
(v) The first component of the second part of Paragraph (A) states that "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."
(vi) The first component of the second part of Paragraph (A) merely prescribes that GE's Operational Officers and functional Managers or Acting Managers will also have the authority to execute the general category of documents listed in Paragraph (A) (see point (i) above) relating to their respective domains. Note that all such individuals are management or higher level employees of GE.
(vii) The second component of the second part of Paragraph (A) states that "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."
(viii) The second component of the second part of Paragraph (A) describes the authority of GE's Operational Officers and Managers to "delegate to others" the authority to execute certain limited kinds of contracts, documents and instruments which are expressly listed in Paragraph (C). This limitation prescribed by this component is very important for the present purpose and must be noted.
(ix) Paragraph (C) is reproduced below and it is crystal clear that court pleadings and powers of attorney in general (including Vakalatnamas) to be signed on behalf of GE do not fall within the terms of Paragraph (C).
(x) Paragraph (C) of GE's Board Resolution states:
"(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."
(xi) Paragraph (D) of the Board Resolution pertains to the delegation authority of the "Senior Vice President-Finance and the Vice President and Treasurer" of GE in relation to financial affairs and instruments and is not relevant for the present purpose.
(xii) Paragraph (E) of the Board Resolution also pertains to the delegation authority of the "Senior Vice President-Finance and the Vice President and Comptroller" of GE in relation to financial affairs and instruments and is not relevant for the present purpose.
(xiii) Paragraph (F) of the Board Resolution pertains to the delegation authority of the "General Counsel" of GE, i.e., the principal Legal Officer of GE. This delegation authority is limited to (a) documents and court pleadings "relating to inventions and technology and to patent, trademark and copyright matters" and (b) "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".
(xiv) It is crystal clear that Paragraph (F) pertains only to the specific area of Intellectual Property (IP) related documents and proceedings and does not apply to court pleadings and powers of attorney (including Vakalatnamas) to be signed on behalf of GE in non-IP litigation or in general litigation.
(xv) Paragraph (G) of the Board Resolution is limited to documents or instruments pertaining to real property and is not relevant for the present purpose.
(xvi) Note therefore, that there are two forms of authority described in GE's Board Resolution. First, there is the authority that is granted by the Board Resolution itself. The authority described in Paragraph (A) and Paragraph (G) is authority granted by the Board Resolution itself and this authority vests only in GE employees.
(xvii) The other kind of authority described in GE's Board Resolution is authority derived from permissible or authorized delegations under the Board Resolution, i.e. "Authority delegated pursuant to the last sentence of Paragraph (A) or pursuant to Paragraphs (B), (C), (D), (E) or (F)". (See Paragraphs (H) and (I) of GE's Board Resolution). Paragraph (H) reproduced hereinabove sums up this authority to delegate to "others". Therefore, the authority that can be delegated to "others", i.e., to arms-length agents of GE (or non-GE employees) to sign documents on behalf of GE exists only for certain categories of documents expressly referred to in the "last sentence of Paragraph (A) or in Paragraphs (B), (C), (D), (E) or (F) of the Board Resolution.
(xviii) The authority to sign court pleadings and powers of attorney in general is granted by the Board Resolution only to specified GE employees listed in Paragraph (A). This authority derives directly from the Board Resolution itself.
(xix) As already demonstrated hereinabove, general court pleadings and general powers of attorney are not covered by the last sentence of Paragraph (A) or pursuant to Paragraphs (C), (D), (E) or (F) of GE's Board Resolution, which set out when the delegation of authority to "others" is permissible.
(xx) The only exception to this scheme of the Board Resolution is Paragraph (B) which states that "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." This creates an omnibus authority to delegate the authority to execute any contract, document or instrument on behalf of GE to any 'other' person, and therefore this authority is vested only in the senior-most officers of GE, i.e., only in the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of GE's Board of Directors.
(xxi) Admittedly, the Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 were not executed by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of GE's Board of Directors. Therefore, these Powers of Attorney do not fall within the scope of the authority to delegate to "others" that exists in Paragraph (B) of GE's Board Resolution.
Who is Alexander Dimitrief?
Alexander Dimitrief is a lawyer and was Vice President, Litigation & Legal Policy of General Electric Company from 9 February 2007 until October 31, 2011. He was appointed as General Counsel of GE Energy on 1 November 2011. Alexander Dimitrief has since been appointed as the General Counsel of General Electric Company with effect from 1.11.2015.
Who is Bradford Berenson.
Mr. Bradford Berenson is a lawyer and was appointed as the Operational Officer for Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric Company on 15 October 2012. This is the same position that Alexander Dimitrief occupied until October 31, 2011. Curiously, this crucial Operational Officer position at General Electric Company that is responsible for supervising litigation for GE world-wide was not filled for almost a year between November 1, 2011 to 15 October 2012. (Note that Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 was instituted during this period and the first Power of Attorney for GE was also allegedly executed on 4.5.2012 during this period.) Mr Bradford Berenson has left GE employment in 2017.
From the above analysis of the scheme and structure of GE's Board Resolution, the following conclusions emerge.
Power of Attorney dated 4.5.2012
Alexander Dimitrief was an authorized person in terms of Paragraph (A) of the Board Resolution and was therefore authorized to himself sign a vakalatnama for GE for Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and to himself sign the court pleadings and court affidavits for GE for this litigation.
A vakalatnama does not fall with the specific kinds of powers of attorney listed in Paragraphs (C) or (F) of GE's Board Resolution. The powers of attorney contemplated by Paragraph (C) are only those involving sale/ purchase of motor vehicles and those involving customs-related services. The powers of attorney contemplated by Paragraph (F) are only limited to those involving intellectual property related proceedings in Patent, Trademark Registration or Copyright Offices. Alexander Dimitref was therefore not authorized by GE's Board Resolution to delegate the authority to execute a vakalatnama for GE for Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 to Mr. K R Radhakrishnan, who was not an employee of General Electric Company.
Paragraph (F) of GE's Board Resolution only authorizes GE's General Counsel to delegate to "others" the authority to sign court pleadings for GE "relating to inventions and technology and to patent, trademark and copyright matters" or "relating to proceedings in the Patent, Trademark Registration or Copyright Offices". On 4.5.2012, when the said Power of Attorney was allegedly executed, Mr Alexander Dimitrief was not the General Counsel of GE. In any case, even GE's General Counsel does not, under Paragraph (F) of GE's Board Resolution, have the authority to delegate to "others" the authority to sign court pleadings for general litigation or any non-IP litigation involving GE as a party. Therefore, Mr. Alexander Dimitrief on 4.5.2012, did not in any manner, have any authority to delegate the authority to sign court pleadings on behalf of GE for non-IP related litigation to "others" under GE's Board Resolution.
According to GE's Board Resolution, court pleadings for GE can only be signed by GE employees except in the limited case of specialized litigation related to intellectual property. The justification for this exemption for IP litigation is obvious because a lot of IP related proceedings and filings are conducted on behalf of companies by registered IP agents.
Therefore, Mr. Alexander Dimitrief did not have the authority to delegate the authority to sign court pleadings on behalf of GE for Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 to Mr. K R Radhakrishnan (who was not a GE employee) under any provision of GE's Board Resolution.
The Power of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 allegedly executed by Mr. Alexander Dimitrief on behalf of GE in favor of Mr K R Radhakrishnan, a non-GE individual, allegedly authorizing Mr K R Radhakrishnan to represent GE as its authorized signatory in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 in the Delhi High Court, was therefore contrary to the terms of GE's Board Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009), was in violation of this Board Resolution, was unauthorized under this Board Resolution, and was therefore invalid, illegal and null and void. In executing this Power of Attorney, Mr Alexander Dimitrief violated and exceeded the express limits to his authority under GE's Board Resolution, and in fact, usurped the authority which GE's Board Resolution grants only to the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of GE's Board of Directors.
Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013
A similar analysis applies to the Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Mr Bradford Berenson in favor of Mr K R Radhakrishnan and similar conclusions emerge.
The Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Mr. Bradford Berenson on behalf of GE in favor of Mr K R Radhakrishnan, a non-GE individual, allegedly authorizing Mr K R Radhakrishnan to represent GE as its authorized signatory in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 in the Delhi High Court, was therefore contrary to the terms of GE's Board Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009), was in violation of this Board Resolution, was unauthorized under this Board Resolution, and was therefore invalid, illegal and null and void. In executing this Power of Attorney, Mr Bradford Berenson violated and exceeded the express limits to his authority under GE's Board Resolution, and in fact, usurped the authority which GE's Board Resolution grants only to the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of GE's Board of Directors.
If the Powers of Attorney produced by Mr K R Radhakrishnan to establish himself as the authorized signatory of GE fail, then the Vakalatnamas executed by him in favor of Mr Nanju Ganpathy, et al., allegedly authorizing these lawyers to represent GE before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 also fail. These Vakalatnamas are consequently invalid, illegal and null and void.
All court affidavits and applications filed by Mr K R Radhakrishnan in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 are therefore unauthorized documents. Mr K R Radhakrishnan has perjured himself by claiming in several court affidavits to be the authorized signatory of GE for Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 before the Delhi High Court.
Mr K R Radhakrishnan has unlawfully impersonated as the authorized signatory of GE before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
Additionally, as pointed out by Seema Sapra in her court pleadings filed before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012, the affidavits filed on behalf of GE were not only unauthorized but were also false. These affidavits were replete with false-hoods intended to cover up the corruption complaints made by the whistle-blower Seema Sapra.
Questions to be investigated
A. Are the alleged Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013, copies of which were placed on record before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012, forged documents?
B. Who all were the masterminds, planners and participants of this conspiracy to defraud the Delhi High Court by using an imposter, Mr K R Radhakrishnan, to impersonate as the authorized signatory of GE before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012?
In any event, a grave fraud has been committed against justice, against the Delhi High Court, against the whistle-blower Seema Sapra, against the Government of India, and most importantly against General Electric Company itself and its shareholders by this unlawful impersonation of GE by Mr K R Radhakrishnan before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
All these facts had been pointed out by the Petitioner in multiple affidavits and applications filed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012, but the Delhi High Court Bench that issued judgment dated March 2, 2015 did not permit the petitioner to argue the matter and she was not accorded a hearing. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court not only failed to hear the petitioner on these issues but also failed to even consider the court record including multiple affidavits and applications filed by the petitioner. The Delhi High Court Judgement dated March 2. 2015 is silent on these issues, which have not been considered and decided on merits. It is settled law as clarified by the Supreme Court of India, that the principle of res judicata does not apply if a writ petition is not decided on merits. Since Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 was not decided on merits, a further petition to the Supreme Court is not barred by res judicata, including on these issues of the unlawful and fraudulent impersonation by K R Radhakrishnan as the authorized signatory of GE in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 in the Delhi High Court.
As a matter of law, perjury, unlawful and fraudulent impersonation of a party in legal proceedings before an Indian High Court, and possible forgery, is a grave and serious matter, and cannot be brushed under the carpet even if the 2010 Marhowra tender was cancelled.
It is also submitted that this fraudulent and unlawful impersonation of GE before the Delhi High Court was intended to obstruct the course of justice in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012. It therefore also amounts to contempt of court.
This fraudulent and unlawful impersonation of GE was further intended to fraudulently influence the bidding process for both the 2010 and the 2013 tenders for the Marhowra diesel locomotive factory Project of the Railway Ministry, by suppressing the true and correct facts regarding the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery and bribery made by Seema Sapra, the whistleblower, against GE and its other concerned subsidiaries.
Clause 4.3 (b) of the 2013 Marhowra RFQ states that ""fraudulent practice" means a misrepresentation or omission of facts or suppression of facts or disclosure of incomplete facts, in order to influence the Bidding Process".
Clause 4.1.3 b) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ stated that ""fraudulent practice" means a misrepresentation or omission of facts or suppression of facts or disclosure of incomplete facts, in order to influence the Bidding Process".
This fraudulent and unlawful impersonation of GE by K R Radhakrishnan before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 therefore amounts to a prohibited and fraudulent practice committed "in order to influence the Bidding Process" in terms of clause 4.3 (b) of the 2013 RFQ issued by the Railway Ministry for the Marhowra Project, and clause 4.1.3 b) of the 2010 RFQ issued by the Railway Ministry for the Marhowra Project. While the 2010 RFQ was cancelled, GE has been awarded the Marhowra Project as tendered under the 2013 RFQ.
Clause 4.1 of the 2013 Marhowra RFQ states that: "The Applicants and their respective officers, employees, agents and advisers shall observe the highest standard of ethics during the Bidding Process. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Authority may reject an Application without being liable in any manner whatsoever to the Applicant if it determines that the Applicant has, directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged in corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice in the Bidding Process."
It is submitted that the award of the Marhowra Project to GE by the Government of India under the 2013 tender process is bad in law and liable to be cancelled.
Clause 4.2 of the 2013 Marhowra RFQ states that: "Without prejudice to the rights of the Authority under Clause 4.1 hereinabove, if an Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice during the Bidding Process, such Applicant shall not be eligible to participate in any tender or RFQ issued by the Authority during a period of 2 (two) years from the date such Applicant is found by the Authority to have directly or indirectly or through an agent, engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice, as the case may be."
GE is therefore also liable to be blacklisted for a period of two years under clause 4.2 of the 2013 Marhowra RFQ.
I hope the Government of India will take corrective action in this matter.
Seema Sapra
General Electric Company whistleblower
No comments:
Post a Comment