Seema Sapra - General Electric corruption whistle-blower: the Truth prevails : New application filed in Supreme Court of India by General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:52 PM
Subject: New application filed in Supreme Court of India by General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra - 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>, "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>, "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-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, "sho-saket-dl@nic.in" <sho-saket-dl@nic.in>, "sho-cp-dl@nic.in" <sho-cp-dl@nic.in>, seema gmail <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, "vishal.wanchoo@ge.com" <vishal.wanchoo@ge.com>, "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>
Cc: Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>

I have today filed the attached application with annexures in the Supreme Court of India. The filing diary number is 94822.

The application and annexures are also reproduced below.

Seema Sapra

General Electric Company whistleblower

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

SEEMA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner

Versus

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent

I N D E X

______________________________________________________

Sl. No. PARTICULARS PAGES

________________________________________________________

1. Application with prayer for dispensing with office 1-13

Objections in this Appeal in terms of Order dated

1 May 2017 and other prayers with affidavit

2. ANEXXURE IA-1 - Copy of Appellant's appeal 14-19

for support dated 25 July 2017 circulated to lawyers

of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court

of Delhi

3. Annexure IA-2 - email communication dated 20 20-28

August 2017 sent by the Appellant to Prime Minister

Narendra Modi and others titled "Cover-up of complaint

of forgery made by whistleblower Seema Sapra against

General Electric Company - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831".

4. Annexure IA-3 - email communication dated 18 29-39

September 2017 sent by the Appellant to Prime

Minister Narendra Modi and others titled "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".

FILED BY:

SEEMA SAPRA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

DRAWN ON: 18.9.2017

FILED ON: 19.9.2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

SEEMA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner

Versus

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent

APPLICATION WITH PRAYER FOR DISPENSING WITH OFFICE OBJECTIONS IN THIS APPEAL IN TERMS OF ORDER DATED 1 MAY 2017 AND OTHER PRAYERS

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. The Appellant was granted the opportunity to file the present application by this Hon'ble Court's order dated 1 May 2017 which is reproduced below.

Appellant-in-person is granted eight weeks time to remove the office objections as pointed out by the Registry or in the alternative to take out the formal application for appropriate relief including to dispense with the office objections. Eight weeks' time will not preclude the appellant-in-person to remove the office objections or take necessary steps.

2. The Appellant-whistleblower is being targeted, hounded, followed 24/7 and being poisoned with chemicals. She is sleeping in her car parked outside Gate 8 of the Delhi High Court and is surviving on charity. Attempts are being made to drug the Appellant every day and on a few occasions, this appears to have been successful.

3. A copy of the Appellant's appeal for support dated 25 July 2017 circulated to lawyers of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi is annexed hereto as Annexure IA-1.

4. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the office objections and to hear the present appeal keeping in mind the grave facts and circumstances of this case and the precarious circumstances of the Appellant.

5. The Appellant is being targeted to prevent her from filing other appropriate petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and to prevent her from having the present Appeal heard by this Hon'ble Court.

6. 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 agents.

7. The following submissions are made with respect to the office objections in this matter.

1	OBJECTION -Full cause title of CCN 2/2014 is not given in slp and to be corrected accordingly everywhere COMMENT – Full cause title has been stated.
2	OBJECTION - FIR format is not filed COMMENT – There is no FIR in this matter.
3	OBJECTION - Appendix is not filed COMMENT – It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the electronic copies of the entire court record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012, CONT. CASE(CRL) 2/2014, CONT. CASE(CRL) 3/2012, and O.M.P.647/2012, all from the High Court of Delhi. The records of all these four proceedings are important for the adjudication of the present appeal and as the records of these cases are very voluminous, it is prayed that the electronic records be summoned from the High Court of Delhi.
4	OBJECTION - Neither certified copy of the impugned order nor for exemption from filing certified copy has been filed COMMENT – The true copy of the impugned order filed has been downloaded from the Delhi High Court website.
5	OBJECTION - Rule, act etc not specifically given in listing proforma, column 7 to be filed COMMENT – This information has been provided.
6	OBJECTION - Email address of petitioner is not given COMMENT – The Court Registry has the email of the Appellant and has been communicating with the Appellant on this email. In fact, since the Appellant is homeless, she has requested the Court Registry to send her all notices by email.
7	OBJECTION - Crl. appeal is not filed on proper format as per new notification with full cause title annx are to be mentioned in appeal. Slp is too lengthy, prayers are not proper, crl. appeal to be checked later on COMMENT – This appears to be an omnibus objection by the Court Registry. It is submitted that the correct format for criminal appeals has been used, the full cause title is mentioned in the appeal, the appeal is not too lengthy, the prayers are proper. It is unclear why the registry wants to once again check the appeal "later on".
8	OBJECTION - Order dt. 6.5.14 , 26.5.14, 2.3.15 and 30.10.15 are required COMMENT – Copies of order dated 6.5.2014 of the Delhi High Court; order dated 21.5.2014 in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014; copy of judgement dated 2.3.2015 in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012; and order dated 30.20.2015 in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014 are being filed in a separate volume of the Appeal paper-book.
9	OBJECTION - Objectionable statements are appearing on page 23, 52, 47,53,57 etc COMMENT - The Appellant has examined pages 23, 52, 47,53,57 of the Appeal mentioned in objection 9 as containing objectionable statements. It is submitted that pages 32 to 62 of the Appeal merely reproduce an email that the Appellant had sent to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi on 6.5.2014. Copies of this email dated 6.5.2014 were filed by the Appellant on the court record in Contempt Case Crl 2/2014 and in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 before the Delhi High Court. This email is a contemporaneous account of what transpired on 6.5.2014 and is therefore relevant for the appeal. It is also a part of the lower court record and the appellant is duty-bound to produce it. It is further respectfully submitted that page 23 of the appeal does not contain any objectionable statement against the Court or any Judge of any court, but merely states that Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 was wrongly dismissed and this dismissal results in a cover-up of corruption by General Electric Company and in the continued targeting thereafter of the Appellant. This is merely described as the factual result of the dismissal and no motive is attributed to the Delhi High Court Bench in the language used. This factual result is in fact and will be demonstrated and established in the appeal. It is therefore submitted that there is therefore no objectionable statement on page 23 of the Appeal.
10	OBJECTION - Certificate is not filed COMMENT – There is no requirement of certificate as this is a statutory appeal.
11	OBJECTION - Days of delay differ from limitation report COMMENT – The appellant has calculated the delay period. The registry can provide a correction if required, as it does in all matters.
12	OBJECTION - Application for permission to appear and argue in person is not filed COMMENT – The Appellant has made this prayer in the present application.
13	OBJECTION - Annexure are not filed COMMENT – Same as objection no. 3.
14	OBJECTION - In view of above defects matter needs to be rechecked COMMENT – It is unclear as to why the Court Registry needs to recheck this matter.
15	OBJECTION - Neither certified copy nor exemption application has been filed COMMENT – This is a repeat of objection no. 4.
16	OBJECTION - In matters involving conviction whether separate proof of surrender in respect of all convicts or application for exemption from surrendering has been filed (Please see judgment dated 16.6.2006 in Crl. Appeal no. 685/2006 entitled COMMENT – Not -Applicable.

8. In view of the above, it is submitted and prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the Court Registry to dispense with the office objections and to list the present Appeal before the Hon'ble Court for hearing.

9. The Appellant intends to file a right to life and whistleblower petition under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution of India seeking Z+ security and appropriate separate and private accommodation from the Government of India, and bringing her complaints against General Electric Company of corruption, fraud, bribery, forgery, perjury and illegal impersonation etc., in connection with the Railway Ministry's Marhowra diesel locomotive factory Project and in connection with Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 to the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Some evidence of the Appellant's whistleblower complaints against General Electric Company and the Railway Ministry is already set out in this appeal, which the Appellant relies upon, Further annexed here as annexure IA-2 is an email communication dated 20 August 2017 sent by the Appellant to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others titled "Cover-up of complaint of forgery made by whistleblower Seema Sapra against General Electric Company - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831". Also annexed here as annexure IA-3 is an email communication dated 18 September 2017 sent by the Appellant to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others titled "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".

10. The Appellant is a lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi since 1995. She was the petitioner in person in the connected whistleblower matter, Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 before the Delhi High Court. She has also personally appeared in this contempt matter before the Delhi High Court. The Appellant is fully aware of the facts and circumstances of this case and of the connected matters. She is fully conversant with court procedure, and with the substantive and procedural law and legal issues that arise in this matter. She is fully competent and able to assist this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the Appellant be permitted to appear and argue this matter in person. The Appellant is also facing up to a powerful lobby of lawyers who are opposing her efforts to obtain justice in this matter. She is being socially and professionally ostracised by the legal community at the behest of these powerful lawyers.

11. The Appellant has another request to the Hon'ble Court that it may direct the Court Registry to permit the Appellant to carry her laptop/ stroller bag into the Court-room when this matter is listed for hearing, subject of course to all necessary security checks. This bag contains her laptop and external hard drive. The Petitioner will need the laptop for the hearing of this matter. The valuable property of the Appellant has been repeatedly damaged and destroyed over the last seven years, including by the Delhi Police. The Appellant therefore, keeps this bag with her at all times. She requests this Hon'ble Court that she may be allowed to bring the bag inside the court-room, as its contents will not be safe otherwise.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Application and :-

(i) To direct the Supreme Court registry to dispense with the office objections in this appeal and to list the appeal for hearing before the Hon'ble Court;

(ii) To permit the Appellant to appear and argue in this matter in person;

(iii) To permit the Appellant to carry her laptop/ stroller bag inside the court-rom when this Appeal is listed;

(iv) To summon electronic copies of the entire court record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012, CONT. CASE(CRL) 2/2014, CONT. CASE(CRL) 3/2012, and O.M.P.647/2012, all from the High Court of Delhi;

(v) 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: 18/9.2017

FILED ON: 19/9/2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

SEE*MA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner

Versus

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Seema Sapra, 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 dispensing with the office objections in this Appeal along with other prayers (from pages 3 to 10) 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.

3. That the annexures annexed to the accompanying application are true copies of the respective originals.

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 19th day of September 2017.

DEPONENT

Annexure IA-1

ANNEXURE IA-1

TRUE COPY

Appeal dated 25 July 2017 from General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831

General Electric Company (GE) whistleblower Seema Sapra being targeted & poisoned

I am a woman lawyer (1995 enrollment) who worked with GE in 2010. I exposed corruption, fraud, forgery, bribes paid by GE to secure a multi-billion USD railway locomotive project at Marhowra. Manmohan Singh &Montek Singh Ahluwalia were involved. The present BJP government is also trying to cover up this corruption due to GE's influence.

I was drugged, poisoned, harassed & targeted. I filed WP Civil 1280/2012 in the Delhi High Court which languished unheard for 3 years while I was rendered homeless, penniless, falsely & maliciously defamed as mentally ill, had my ankle deliberately dislocated in June 2014, and was poisoned. The police, lawyers & the DHCBA was used against me. I was forced to sleep in my car for over a year and a half.

In March 2015, my right to life petition against GE, Railways & Police was dismissed unheard on the specious ground that it had become infructuous. I was penniless, living on charity since August 2012 but was fined Rs. 2 Lakhs to prevent me from fighting this corruption battle.

Throughout 2015, I was again drugged, poisoned, living on charity with a dislocated ankle.

In December 2015, the same Bench without hearing me wrongly convicted me of contempt of Court & sentenced me to prison for 2 months. I was further barred from appearing before the High Court & lower courts for 2 years & from arguing any matter filed by me even in person. This was again intended to prevent me from fighting my corruption case against GE.

In March 2016, I managed to file a statutory appeal against the contempt order in the Supreme Court where I pointed out that I was a whistleblower being targeted, that I would be poisoned in prison, & I showed how my writ petition against GE had been incorrectly dismissed, contrary to the record & without hearing me.

I have continued to be poisoned since then to prevent me from having my appeal heard by the Supreme Court & to prevent me from filing an Article 32 right to life petition in the Supreme Court exposing the cover-up of the corruption by GE which has included sabotage of my matter in the Delhi High Court by the court registry & by perjury & falsified documents produced by the railway & police counsels in my matter. AZB & Partners have committed a fraud on the Delhi High Court by appearing for GE without valid vakalatnamas& by filing affidavits of a person who has failed to produce valid authority documents for GE and has effectively impersonated GE before the Delhi High Court and filed false affidavits.

Through 2016, I survived on charity, living in cheap hotels & B&Bs. In October 2016, my car was deliberately damaged and since then is parked outside the Delhi High Court.

In January 2017, the police started to prevent me from getting even a hotel room because I only have a Delhi ID. I have slept in my car from around 15 January 2017 parked outside Gate 8 of the Delhi High Court.

I went to Jaipur & Rajasthan twice in January & March 2017 and both times I was followed around and poisoned.

Since mid-March 2017. I am sleeping in my car parked outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court. I am being poisoned there every night with nerve agents and anesthetic gases. I am followed by men on motorcycles when I take autos, I am followed on the metro & I am followed wherever I go and am targeted and poisoned with chemicals. The intent is to prevent me from drafting & filing my cases before the Supreme Court.

In the summer vacation, repeated attempts were made to poison & murder me in my car at night outside Gate 8 of the Delhi High Court. CRPF men posted at the Delhi High Court are also being used to poison me at night in my car. I have heard the police security deployed in the High Court misleading people that I am mentally ill. This is intended to provide cover so that I can be poisoned and no one listens to my complaints.

In the summer vacation, my car was tampered with and the scuttle drain deliberately blocked. Since then, rain water is leaking into my car and soaking the carpets. Bugs, ants and spiders are being introduced into my car. Two weeks ago, something bit me and my entire arm swelled up. It was diagnosed as a severe allergic reaction. I noticed the bite around noon at a Starbucks so I am not sure where I was bit. The dermatologist said it could have been a spider. My arm has now healed.

A few weeks ago, some animal feces were placed in my car to target me.

I am surviving on charity. I am only seeking orders from the Supreme Court to protect my right to life.

I need your help & support. Lawyers are being told not to help me. There is a powerful lobby of lawyers acting against me. I am also being targeted with chemicals inside the Delhi High Court, with the involvement of some powerful lawyers aligned against me.

Chemicals have been thrown into my eyes. Attempts are being made to physically incapacitate me by making me blind, paralyzed, or very ill. The intent is to disable me so that I cannot fight this matter.

Another reason why I am being targeted is that since 2011, I have made public a complaint that I was sexually harassed and even assaulted by Soli J Sorabjee when he was AG in 2000-2001 and when I was working as a junior in his office.

This morning I was poisoned while using a restroom in the Delhi High Court. Some chemical nerve agent was sprayed under the door while I was inside.

Please help and support me and please do not join others in targeting me in any manner. Please support me in this David and Goliath battle that I am fighting against cover-up of high-stake corruption. I am fighting against fraud committed on the Delhi High Court. I am fighting for the truth and for justice. I am fighting for my life.

Seema Sapra 9582716748 seema.sapra@gmail.com

Please read about my ordeal and my complaints and evidence against GE and my contempt appeal at my blog at seemasapra.blogspot,com and on Twitter at @SeemaSapraLaw

AnnexureIA 2

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:59 PM
Subject: Cover-up of complaint of forgery made by whistleblower Seema Sapra against General Electric Company - 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>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.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>, "customercare@tatastarbucks.com" <customercare@tatastarbucks.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, info@ivankatrump.com, india@mofa.go.kr, consular2@newdelhi.mfa.gov.il, info@newdelhi.mfa.gov.il, mumbai@amchamindia.com
Cc: seema sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>

NOTE ON FORGERY BY GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (GE)

I present below some additional facts about my complaint that the customer certificate for Kazakhstan Railway submitted by GE with its RFQ application to the Railway Ministry on 12 July 2010 for the second (aborted) tender for the Marhowra diesel locomotive factory was a tampered and therefore forged document.

I made the complaint of forgery to the CVC by email dated 11.01.2011.

The Central Vigilance Commission registered a complaint on this email complaint, numbered the complaint as complaint no. 107/11/1 and informed me about it by CVC letter dated 30.5.2011. This letter is attached.

No further action took place on this letter.

Thus, when I filed Writ Petition 1280/ 2012 in the Delhi High Court against GE, the Railway Ministry and the CVC, I also pleaded that the CVC had not acted further on complaint no. 107/11/1 after registering it.

Notice was issued to both the Railway Ministry and the CVC (among other respondents) by the Delhi High Court on 7 March 2012.

Note that initially no lawyer appeared for the CVC and no affidavit was filed for the CVC despite service of the court notice.

On 2 July 2012, a counter affidavit signed by a Railway Officer Nihar Ranjan Dash was filed for the Railway Ministry which was respondent no. 4. This was filed through a lawyer R N Singh, who claimed to be the Standing Counsel for Railways.

Fraud No. 1

This affidavit was described as an affidavit not only on behalf of the Railway Ministry but also as an affidavit on behalf of the CVC.

A railway officer has no authority or legal standing to file an affidavit on behalf of the CVC and the description of this affidavit as the CVC affidavit constitutes perjury, fraud and deception of the highest order committed against the Delhi High Court.

Paragraph 3 of this Railway Affidavit dated 2 July 2012 read as under:

"3. That the Central Vigilance Commission vide its letter No. 117/RLY/16/124624 dated 11.04.2011 had forwarded to Railway Board a copy of e-mail complaint dated 11.01.2011 received in the Commission from Ms. Seema Sapra, Advocate, New Delhi in which the complainant alleged that fake Customer Certificate was submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. in connection with Request for Qualification (RFQ) for setting up Diesel Locomotive Factory at Marhowra, District – Saran, Bihar. On receipt of the complaint, the matter was got thoroughly investigated and the investigation has revealed that Clause 3.2 related to "Technical Capacity', inter-alia, mentioned that the applicant firm should have manufactured and supplied at least 1000 Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over the period of last ten years. Scrutiny of the tender file revealed that as per the Customers' Certificate attached at page 63 to 113 of the RFQ submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd., the company had designed, manufactured and supplied total 2326 mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over a period of last ten years. Thus, it is noticed that even if the Customer Certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway for 10 No. of locomotives supplied by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. is discarded, the firm was fulfilling the 'Technical Capacity' criteria, as the requirement as per clause 3.2 of the RFQ is only 1000 locomotives over the period of last ten years. Thus, investigation has found that the firm M/s. Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no substance was found in the allegation. The report of investigation was sent to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission after perusal of the Investigation Report and the comments of the administrative authorities thereon has advised closure of the case vide CVC's ID No. 117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.20111 (Annexure R-1).

Fraud No. 2

Annexure R-1 to this affidavit is a single page numbered as internal page 14 in the affidavit and is attached.

Note that this alleged CVC document does not mention the complaint number assigned by the CVC to my complaint of forgery, i.e., complaint no. 107/11/1.

Note also that this document has an internal page number printed on top by hand which reads "-10-". This single page is therefore in fact the last page (page no. 10) of a 10-page document. The first nine pages of this document are missing.

Note that this alleged CVC document is not on the CVC letter-head. It is signed by one R C Arora who is described as "Director". The absence of a letter-head on this document is also consistent with this being the last and 10^th page of a ten-page document.

It is also quite clear that the Railway Ministry affidavit has fraudulently produced before the Delhi High Court the last page of a 10-page CVC letter issued with respect to some other complaint (not complaint no. 107/11/1 pertaining to GE), as a complete CVC document and has used this to lie to the Delhi High Court that the CVC had advised closure of the forgery complaint against GE. This affidavit and the fraudulent production of this incomplete CVC document and the intent to pass off this document as pertaining to the GE complaint amounts to and constitutes perjury, forgery, fraud and deception of the highest order against the Delhi High Court.

Note also that this alleged CVC document does not mention the complaint number assigned to the GE complaint, does not mention the undersigned (the complainant), does not mention GE, and does not mention the word forgery or the words Kazakhstan customer certificate. It has no discussion of the complaint of forgery against GE or of any alleged investigation of that complaint.

This alleged document mentions an investigation report, comments of the administrative authorities thereon, and a Railway Board communication dated 12.08.2011, neither of which were produced before the Delhi High Court.

On 19 August 2017, I checked the status of complaint No. 107/11/1 on the CVC website. A screenshot of the search result is attached. According to the search on the CVC website, the CVO report in respect of complaint No. 107/11/1 was received by the CVC on 16/8/2011 and the CVC advised closure of the case on 19/9/2011.

Now Annexure R-1 has another discrepancy if compared to the information available on the CVC website. Annexure R-1 states "Railway Board's ID No.2011/VC/RB/10-CVC dated 12.08.2011 refers and its file is sent herewith."

So, the document produced as Annexure R-1 is an incomplete CVC document that advises closure of a complaint where the CVO report was received on 12.8.2011, whereas according to the information available on the CVC website, the CVO report in respect of Complaint No. 107/11/1 was received only on 16/8/2011. This further establishes that the document produced as Annexure R-1 along with the Railway Ministry affidavit does not pertain to Complaint No. 107/11/1.

Fraud No. 3

Also note that paragraph 3 of the Railway Affidavit dated 2 July 2012 (which has been reproduced above) itself contains several false and misleading statements.

Paragraph 3 states that GE did not require the Customer Certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway for 10 No. of locomotives for fulfilling the 'Technical Capacity' criteria, toward meeting the RFQ requirement for supply of 1000 locomotives over the period of last ten years.

This statement is misleading and false. GE did require the Kazakhstan certificate to meet the additional RFQ requirement that the 1000 locomotives should be of different variants, i.e., locomotives with either gauge or service application variations, and that the supply should have been to three or more countries. GE did not meet the requirement for two variants and supply to three countries prescribed by Clause 3.2.1 of the RFQ without the Kazakhstan Railways customer certificate.

Clause 2.2.2 (A) prescribed five separate requirements to establish eligibility for technical prequalification. The first two are relevant for the present purpose and are reproduced below.

"2.2.2 To be eligible for prequalification and short listing, an Applicant shall fulfill

the following conditions of eligibility:

(A) Technical Capacity: For demonstrating technical capacity and experience

(the "Technical Capacity"), the Applicant shall, have:

i. over the past 10 (ten) years, designed, manufactured and supplied 4000

or higher HP IGBT Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives;

ii. over the past 10 (ten) years, designed, manufactured and supplied at

least two (2) Variants of Mainline Diesel Locomotives and such

supply should have been to three (3) or more countries;

iii. …."

Clause 3.2.1 (a) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ is also relevant and is reproduced below.

"3.2 Technical Capacity for purposes of evaluation

3.2.1 Subject to the provisions of Clause 2.2, the Applicant shall:

a) over the period of last ten (10) years, have manufactured and supplied

at least 1000 Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives and:

i. such Locomotives should comprise at least 2 Variants; a

Variant for the purpose of this RFQ Document shall mean a

Locomotive with different gauge or with different service

application;

ii. the supply of such Locomotives should have been to three (3)

or more countries;

iii. 200 or more of such Diesel Electric Locomotives should be of

4000 HP (or higher) with AC-AC 3-phase and IGBT

technology;

iv. 25 or more of such Diesel Electric Locomotives should be of

6000 HP (or higher);"

Therefore, the following statements in paragraph 3 of the Railway Ministry are misleading and false.

1. That the complaint of the fake customer certificate was thoroughly investigated.

2. That the fake Kazakhstan certificate could simply have been discarded by the Railway Ministry.

3. That GE did not derive any advantage by submitting the Kazakhstan Railway customer certificate.

4. That therefore and for the above reasons alone there was no substance found in the allegation of forgery.

In addition, as already described above, the Railway Ministry officer Nihar Ranjan Dash was used to deceive the Delhi High Court by fraudulently filing an affidavit on behalf of the CVC and by fraudulently producing a fake CVC letter that allegedly advised closure of the forgery complaint against GE.

It is therefore amply clear that there has been no investigation by the CVC of this complaint of forgery against GE.

The judgment issued by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition 1280/2012 dated March 2, 2015 and which I have contended before the Supreme Court of India was issued without affording me a hearing, refers to and reproduces this very paragraph 3 in the Railway Affidavit dated 2 July 2012 after stating the following :-

"In fact, the petitioner had filed a complaint with CVC with regard to some of her allegations made in this petition, and the records of this court show that after replying to the petitioner that the complaint has been looked into, CVC ultimately had advised closure of the case and this is so stated in the counter- affidavit of respondents no. 2 and 4/Railways dated 2.7.2012 and the relevant para of the counter-affidavit is para 3 which reads as under:- "

Note that the Delhi High Court judgment dated March 2. 2015, fails to appreciate that the affidavit dated 2 July 2012 was signed by a Railway officer who had no authority to file an affidavit on behalf of the CVC.

The Delhi High Court judgment dated March 2, 2015 also fails to appreciate that para 3 of the counter affidavit dated 2 July 2012 does not state that the complaint of forgery was investigated and it instead falsely claims that GE did not require the Kazakhstan certificate to qualify and that the certificate could be "discarded". How could the Railway Ministry have simply discarded a forged customer certificate submitted by GE? Forgery constitutes a criminal offence and amounted to a fraudulent and corrupt practice under other clauses of the tender which would have rendered GE liable for disqualification and blacklisting.

The Delhi High Court judgment dated March 2, 2015 also fails to appreciate that Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit dated 2 July 2012 was an incomplete document with the first nine pages missing and that it did not contain the complaint number and that the Railway Affidavit had in fact filed a fake CVC letter.

The Delhi High Court judgment dated March 2, 2015 failed to therefore appreciate that the statement in the Railway counter-affidavit dated 2 July 2012 that the CVC had investigated and advised closure of the complaint of forgery by GE, was false and untrue.

All these facts had been pointed out by the Petitioner in multiple affidavits and applications 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 but also failed to even consider the court record including multiple affidavits and applications filed by the petitioner.

It is therefore clear that a grave fraud has been committed on the Delhi High Court and Railway Ministry officials were used to collude in covering of this complaint of forgery against GE.

As a matter of law, forgery of a customer certificate submitted with a Government tender is a serious matter and cannot be brushed under the carpet even if the 2010 Marhowra tender was cancelled.

Further, the perjury, fraud, forgery and deception committed by the Railway Ministry in its affidavit dated 2 July 2012 against the Delhi High Court to save and protect GE is also a very serious matter which also cannot be brushed under the carpet.

Seema Sapra

General Electric Company whistleblower

Annexure IA 3

---------- 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

Seema Sapra - General Electric corruption whistle-blower: the Truth prevails

Pages

Saturday, 23 December 2017

New application filed in Supreme Court of India by General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831

No comments:

Post a Comment

My Blog List