---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sapra Consultants <sapraconsultants@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:30 PM
Subject: Cover-up of complaint made by whistleblower Seema Sapra of fraudulent impersonation of General Electric Company by K R Radhakrishnan in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 before the Delhi High Court - 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>
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