This Application will be listed before the Supreme Court of India for hearing on 25 March 2019.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. 112422 OF 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL DIARY NO. 10342 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL DIARY NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEEMA SAPRA
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent
APPLICATION SEEKING TO PLACE ON RECORD DOCUMENTS FROM THE DELHI HIGH COURT RECORD IN WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 1280/2012 WHICH ESTABLISH THAT FRAUDULENT, INVALID AND FORGED DOCUMENTS WERE FILED IN THAT CASE AS ‘AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS’ IN FAVOR OF ONE K R RADHAKRISHNAN WHO THEREBY UNLAWFULLY IMPERSONATED AS THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRVATE LIMITED, AND GE GLOBAL SOURCING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED IN THAT CASE AND WHO FILED FALSE, PERJURIOUS AND UNAUTHORIZED AFFIDAVITS IN THAT CASE AS PART OF A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD ON THE DELHI HIGH COURT AND TO COVER UP THE PETITIONER”S WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINTS AGAINST GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY BY SABOTAGING WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 1280/2012.
To
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India., the application of the Appellant/ Petitioner most respectfully showeth:-
1. As stated in the memo of the present appeal, this appeal challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court in a criminal contempt proceeding has its genesis in a whistleblower right to life petition that the appellant had filed in the Delhi High Court i.e., Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others (hereinafter referred to as the “Writ Petition”).
2. This appeal will establish that the appellant is a whistleblower, a lawyer who worked in 2010 for General Electric Company in India and who was compelled to make whistleblower complaints when her legal services were sought to be used for corrupt practices including fraud, forgery, bribery, illegal lobbying etc. in connection with Indian Railway tenders for rail locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura. This appeal will establish that attempts were made to eliminate the appellant with State authorities including the Police and intelligence agencies being used to target and silence the appellant. The appellant managed to file an Article 226 petition in the Delhi High Court. This appeal will establish that this petition languished unheard in the Delhi High Court for 3 years while the appellant continued to be destroyed, physically harmed, attacked, intimidated, harassed, targeted and threatened. This Appeal will establish that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed that Petition by a judgment dated 2.3.2015 without hearing the appellant who was the petitioner in that matter in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. This appeal will establish that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed the whistleblower corruption case against General Electric Company in complete disregard of the material on record before it, in complete disregard of the law and in complete disregard of the appellant’s right to life. This appeal will establish that this unsustainable and wrongful dismissal of the writ petition resulted in a cover-up of very serious complaints and evidence of corruption by and favouring General Electric Company facilitated by then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and his close aide and then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition and the denial of a hearing to the appellant in that matter resulted in gross injustice, and a cover up of attempts to murder the appellant, a cover-up of the fact that the appellant was poisoned, a cover-up of State and police participation in the conspiracy and attempts to silence and eliminate the appellant, a cover-up of the severe targeting that the appellant was subjected to and a cover up of the gross violation of the appellant’s right to life. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition has resulted in the appellant continuing to be poisoned for the last one year since 2.3.2015, and continuing to be targeted, harassed, intimidated, threatened, defamed and destroyed. This appeal will further establish that a mind-boggling fraud was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 where an unauthorized person effectively impersonated as the authorised signatory of General Electric Company and two of its subsidiaries and filed patently false and unauthorized affidavits and that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition results in a cover up of this massive fraud on the Court. This appeal will further establish that affidavits filed for the Railway Ministry in the Writ Petition contained multiple instances of perjury and included documents fabricated expressly for the purpose of covering up the corruption by General Electric. Further this appeal will establish that affidavits and status reports filed for the Delhi Police in the Writ petition also contained multiple instances of perjury, and that these affidavits and status reports themselves establish that the police was targeting the appellant and besides actively facilitating her being physically harmed, the police covered up her complaints and fabricated and procured false complaints against her.
3. The Appellant submits that the record of the present appeal before this Hon’ble Court and the record of Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 establishes that a man named K R Radhakrishnan was used to unlawfully impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company and of its two Indian subsidiaries (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) and to file unauthorized and false affidavits in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. The authority documents produced on his behalf were invalid and fraudulent and forged. Thereby the criminal offences of unlawful impersonation in court proceedings, perjury, forgery, obstruction of justice and fraud on the Delhi High Court were committed as part of a criminal conspiracy to cover up corruption by General Electric Company and these facts are before this Hon’ble Court and are relevant facts for the purposes of the present appeal. These facts establish that the appellant is a whistle-blower and that the lawyers who purported to appear for the three General Electric companies before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 were used to sabotage those judicial proceedings and that false, unauthorized and perjurious affidavits were filed for General Electric Company and its two Indian subsidiaries.
4. The Appellant places reliance on paragraph 19 of the Memo of Appeal which describes the Fraud on the Delhi High Court committed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of General Electric Company.
5. The Appellant places reliance on paragraph 20 of the Memo of Appeal which describes the Fraud on the Delhi High Court committed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
6. The impugned order in the present appeal itself refers to and establishes that the record of Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is relevant to the hearing of the present appeal.
7. The appellant has filed IA 122625/2017 (pending) with prayer to summon the Delhi High Court records of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012, CONT. CASE(CRL) 2/2014, CONT. CASE(CRL) 3/2012, and O.M.P.647/2012.
8. The Appellant also relies upon the order passed in the present appeal on 9 October 2017 wherein the following orders were passed.
“Appellant-in-person states that she will produce Appendix/Annexures before the Court at the time of hearing. She is permitted to do so.”
and
“Appellant-in-person states that she will produce Annexures before the Court at the time of hearing. She is permitted to do so.”
|
9. The present application is therefore being filed to place on record true copies of the following documentsthat pertain to the issue of unlawful impersonation of the US corporation General Electric Company and its two Indian subsidiaries (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. All these documents were filed before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and are part of the public court record.
10. Documents pertaining to General Electric Company
Copy of the copy of the purported Power of Attorney executed by Alexander Dimitrief allegedly on behalf of General Electric Company on 4.5.2012 (Annexure IA-1 hereto)and filed before the Delhi High Court on 19/10/2012
|
Copy of the purported Vakalatnama dated 17.12.2012allegedly executed on behalf of General Electric Company (Annexure IA-2 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 17/12/2012
|
Copy of the purported Vakalatnama dated 9/5/2013 allegedly executed on behalf of General Electric Company (Annexure IA-3 hereto)and filed before the Delhi High Court on 16/7/2013
|
Copy of the copy of the purported power of attorney allegedly executed on 29 April 2013 by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company (Annexure IA-4 hereto) and filed in the Delhi High Court on 16/7/2013
|
True Copy of Board Resolution of General Electric Company dated 26.4.1988 [as incorporated in the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised on November 6, 2009)] setting out the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company. (Annexure IA-5 hereto) and filed in the Delhi High Court on 7 January 2013
|
True Copy of the case history maintained by the Delhi High Court Registry for Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 (Annexure IA-6 here) as accessed from the Delhi High Court website on 3 August 2018
|
11. Documents pertaining to GE India Industrial Private Limited
Copy of the alleged copy of the purported board resolution dated 7 May 2012 of GE India Industrial Private Limited (Annexure IA-7 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 19/10/2012
|
Copy of the purported Vakalatnama dated 17.12.2012 allegedly executed on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited (Annexure IA-8 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 17/12/2012
|
Copy of the alleged copy of the purported Board Resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure IA-9 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 17/12/2012
|
Copy of the purported Vakalatnama dated 16/7/2013 for GE India Industrial Private Limited (Annexure IA-10 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 16/7/2013
|
Copy of the alleged copy of the purported power of attorney dated 8 December 2014 allegedly executed by Tejal Patil on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited (Annexure IA-11 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 28 January 2015
|
Copy of the alleged copy of the purported Board Resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 26/9/2013 (Annexure IA-12 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 28 January 2015
|
Copy of the alleged copy of the purported Board Resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 10/9/2014 (Annexure IA-13 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 28 January 2015
|
12. Documents pertaining to GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited
Copy of the alleged of purported board resolution dated 7 May 2012 of GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited filed before the Delhi High Court on 19.10.2012 (Annexure IA-14 hereto)
|
Copy of the purported Vakalatnama dated 17.12.2012 allegedly executed on behalf of GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (Annexure IA-15 hereto) filed before the Delhi High Court on 17/12/2012
|
Copy of purported Board Resolution of GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure IA-16 hereto) filed before the Delhi High Court on 17/12/2012
|
Copy of purported Vakalatnama dated 16/7/2013 allegedly executed on behalf of GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (Annexure IA-17 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 16/7/2013
|
13. It is submitted that a mere perusal of these documents attached to this application read along with the submissions made on this issue and on these documents,both herein, in the memo of appeal and in the applications moved before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 challenging these purported “authority documents”, establishes that all these authority documents filed before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 were and are invalid, fraudulent and forged and that these documents could not and did not confer any authority on K R Radhakrishnan to represent himself as or act as the authorized signatory for General Electric Company, or for GE India Industrial Private Limited or for GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. Mr K R Radhakrishnan therefore fraudulently and unlawfully impersonated as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company,GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and committed perjury and fraud on the Delhi High Court in that case by filing false and unauthorized affidavits and by filing forged, invalid and fraudulent authority documents.
14. The intent to defraud the Delhi High Court and to sabotage the hearing of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is clear from the egregious and systematic manner in which fraudulent authority documents (all inconsistent with each other and all invalid in law) were repeatedly filed one after the other, in the face of the petitioner’s several applications exposing this fraud and challenging the validity of these authority documents.
15. The Petitioner/ Appellant relies upon the following applications filed by her in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 objecting to these alleged authority documents and pointing out the fraud committed on the Delhi High Court along with the criminal offences of perjury and forgery as part of this unlawful and fraudulent impersonation by K R Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited in that case. None of these applications were ever heard, taken up or decided by the Delhi High Court and Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 was eventually wrongly disposed of as being infructuous with the issues pertaining to these forged, fabricated, fraudulent and invalid authority documents and the issue of the fraudulent and unlawful impersonation by K R Radhakrishnan as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited not being heard or decided by the Delhi High Court. None of these applications were heard or decided by the Delhi High Court.
Applications on these issues filed by the Petitioner in Delhi High Court Writ Petition 1280/2012
Applications on these issues filed by the Petitioner in Delhi High Court Writ Petition 1280/2012
CM 18642/2012
|
CM 19370/2012
|
CM 19683/2012
|
CM 105/2013
|
CM 522/2013
|
CM 10493/2013
|
CM 18969/2014
|
CM 20069/2014
|
CM 1882/2015
|
16. As a result, the petitioner’s whistle-blower and right to life petition against General Electric Company filed in the Delhi High Court (Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012) was sabotaged by the fraudulent and unlawful impersonation of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited by K R Radhakrishnan who fraudulently impersonated as the authorized signatory of these companies in that case, and whose authority documents to make that claim are patently invalid, fraudulent, forged and fabricated, and whose affidavits were not only consequently unauthorized but were as pointed out in the detailed rejoinders of the petitioner filed in WP Civil 1280/2012 false, misleading, evasive and outright perjurious.
17. Facts concerning the fake authority documents allegedly issued by Alexander Dimitrief& Bradford Berenson for General Electric Company and the fraud committed by Alexander Dimitrief& Bradford Berenson in Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding the summons/ notice to and appearance by General Electric Company are briefly set out below.
General Electric Company is a large conglomerate incorporated in the United States. Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to General Electric Company on 7.3.2012.
Advocate NanjuGanpathy appeared on 9.5.2012 claiming to represent General Electric Company and continued to appear thereafter. MrNanjuGanpathy was at that time and until recently was a Partner in the law-firm AZB & Partners which is headed by is founding partner, Ms Zia Mody, the daughter of Soli J Sorabjee who threatened the petitioner about her whistle-blower complaints against General Electric Company.
Affidavits were filed on behalf of General Electric Company through one K R Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of General Electric Company were produced.
At Appellant's request, a court order dated 12.10.2012 directed NanjuGanpathy to produce authority documents to show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of General Electric Company.
NanjuGanpathy filed a photocopy of a document purporting to be a Power of Attorney executed by one Alexander Dimitrief on 4.5.2012. This document had a validity of one year. A copy of this document was emailed by NanjuGanpathy to the petitioner after repeated requests on November 12, 2012.
The petitioner filed CM 18642/2012 on 16 November 2012 pointing out the defects with this alleged authority document and that this document was invalid.
Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been filed by NanjuGanpathy so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi High Court registry shows that a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and was invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75]
CM 19683/2012 was filed by Appellant on 14.12.2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and did not annex the required authority documents.
A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This vakalatnama was signed by K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory for General Electric Company under the Power of Attorney (POA) dated 4.5.2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company.
Affidavit of K Radhakrishnan filed on 7.1.2013 produced an extract from the Board Minutes of General Electric Company containing Board Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009) which authoritatively describes and limits the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings and POAs) on behalf of General Electric Company.
Petitioner filed CM 522/2013 on 14.1.2013 pointing out that the Board Resolution of General Electric Company placed on the court record showed that the alleged Power of Attorney document was ultra-vires, illegal and invalid.
NanjuGanpathy filed another vakalatnama for General Electric Company on 16.7.2013. This vakalatnama was allegedly signed by Bradford Berenson on 9.5.2013. (This document purportedly signed in the US is not an apostilled document and therefore inadmissible for this reason as well).
Attached to this vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 was a photocopy of a document purporting to be a power of attorney allegedly executed on 29 April 2013 by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company. This was also only valid for one year.
The petitioner filed CM 10493 of 2013 on 19.7.2013 pointing out that the new vakalatnama dated 9.5.2013 was also invalid as was the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson dated 29.4.2013.
Since none of the petitioner’s applications on this issue were being heard or even taken up by the Delhi High Court, and because NanjuGanpathy continued to appear for General Electric Company without a valid vakalatnama and since K Radhakrishnan continued to impersonate as authorized signatory of General Electric Company, the petitioner was constrained to move another application on this issue on 21 November 2014 being CM 18969 of 2014. Attached to this application (CM 18969 of 2014) as Annexure P-6 was a specimen signature of Bradford Berenson which was completely different from the signature on the alleged Power of Attorney dated 16.7.2013 and on the alleged vakalatnama dated 9.5.2013.
It is submitted that in any event, since the Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 was valid only for one year, it lapsed and ceased to have legal effect from 29.4.2014 onwards.
Therefore, even without going into the authenticity and legal validity of the authority documents and vakalatnamas filed on behalf of General Electric Company, it is an undisputable fact that General Electric Company was not legally represented by anyone before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 from 30.4.2014 onward.
Legal issues concerning these purported authority documents and vakalatnamas
1. Were the Powers of Attorneys dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson respectively lawful and valid authority documents whereby K Radhakrishnan was appointed as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company for the purpose of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 before the Delhi High Court?
2. Were these documents placed on the court record by NanjuGanpathy fraudulent?
3. Did K Radhakrishnan fraudulently and unlawfully impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and file unauthorized and false affidavits?
4. Were Advocate NanjuGanpathyand his junior colleagues authorized to represent and appear for General Electric Company?
Who is K R Radhakrishnan?
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company. He has described himself in his affidavits as the company secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited, a fully owned Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company. This veracity of this fact needs to be ascertained.
Who is Alexander Dimitrief?
Alexander Dimitrief was Vice President, Litigation & Legal Policy of General Electric Company from 9 February 2007 until November 1, 2011 when he was appointed as General Counsel of GE Energy. Alexander Dimitriefwas appointed as General Counsel of General Electric Company with effect from 1.11.2015. He is no longer in that position.
Who is Bradford Berenson.
Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as the Operational Officer for Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric Company on 15 October 2012. This was in the same position that Alexander Dimitrief occupied until November 1, 2011. Curiously, this crucial Operational Officer position at General Electric Company was not filled for almost a year until 15 October 2012.
Were the Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson legal and valid in law?
The authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company emanates from Board Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009). as incorporated in the Board Minutes of General Electric Company.
Under this Board Resolution, both Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson themselves had the authority to sign court pleadings and powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company for litigation purposes but they had no authority to further delegate this authority to anyone.
This Board Resolution is reproduced hereinafter enclosed in a separate table. The text of the Power of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and the Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson is also reproduced hereinafter enclosed in separate tables.
General Electric Company's Board Resolution No. 10855 stipulates in Paragraph A that certain types of documents/ instruments including court pleadings and powers of attorney can only be signed on behalf of General Electric Company by
(i) Corporate Officers of the Company who are identified by position as "Authorized Persons";
(ii) by an Operational Officer of the Company where such document pertains to the component or function to which such officer is assigned;
(iii) by a Manager or Acting Manager of the relevant Division or Department of General Electric Company.
K R Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company.
Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had no authority to delegate to anyone including to K R Radhakrishnan, the authority to execute either court pleadings or powers of attorney (or vakalatnamas which are a special form of power of attorney) on behalf of General Electric Company in relation to Writ Petition Civil No. 1290/2012 filed in the Delhi High Court.
The Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson respectively were therefore executed in violation of the relevant board resolution of General Electric Company, were themselves unauthorized,illegal and invalid documents and which therefore conferred no authority upon K Radhakrishnan to act as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court.
K Radhakrishnan therefore impersonated as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company and the affidavits filed by him before the Delhi High Court were unauthorized, false and perjurious.
Brackett Denniston (who retired as General Counsel of General Electric Company on 31.10.2015), Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson knowingly participated in a criminal obstruction of justice conspiracy to falsify fraudulent and invalid powers of attorney with intent to enable K R Radhakrishna to unlawfully impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in a whistleblower litigation involving complaints and evidence of corruption by General Electric Company. K Radhakrishnan was used to commit a fraud on the Delhi High Court, on the Government of India and on General Electric Company itself. K Radhakrishnan was used to sign and file false and unauthorized affidavits in the Delhi High Court.
Information about this litigation was suppressed by Brackett Denniston, Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson and Jeffrey Eglash, all senior level in-house lawyers for General Electric Company.
|
EXTRACTS FROM MINUTES OF
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
April 26, 1988
(Revised March 9, 2007)
(Revised November 6, 2009)
10855 EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS
The Chairman reminded the Board that the resolution dealing with the execution of contracts and other instruments on behalf of the company had last been reviewed and revised by the Board in June, 1985, at which time the resolution had been modified to reflect changes in the Company’s organization ad to change its form to make periodic organization updatings unnecessary under ordinary circumstances.
The Chairman noted that the principal purpose of this resolution is to indicate to persons outside the Company the individuals within the Company who have authority to sign various documents.
In view of the Board’s determination to limit the individuals elected as officers of the Company (and authorize the Chairman of the Board to appoint and remove persons as non-corporate Operational Officers), he indicated that it would be advisable to consider revising and clarifying this resolution to take account of these clarifications and related matters.
The Chairman pointed out that, like the existing resolution, the proposed resolution would not confer any authority to approve transactions underlying the documents to be signed over and above that which is possessed by the signer either by virtue of the powers inherent in that individual’s position with the Company or by virtue of a delegation of authority to that individual by the Board of Directors or higher management.
Following discussion, it was
RESOLVED, that
“(A) Any contract, lease, license, assignment, bond or other obligation, conveyance, power of attorney, guarantee, proxy, court pleading, release, tax return, and related documents, or other instruments may be executed on behalf of this Company by the Chairman of the Board, a Vice Chairman of the Board, an Executive Vice President, a Senior Vice President, a Vice President reporting directly to the Chairman or a Vice Chairman of the Board, the Comptroller, the Treasurer, the Secretary or any Vice President who is a corporate staff officer of the Company, all of the above-named individuals being hereinafter called “Authorized Persons”.
In addition to the foregoing, any Operational Officer may sign any instrument of the type described in this Paragraph (A) which relates to the component or function to which such Operational Officer is assigned, and any Manager, or formally designated Acting Manager, of any Division or Department level organization component may sign any such instrument which relates to that component. Each Operational Officer and each such Manager or Acting Manager is authorized to delegate to others, authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the types of contracts or other instruments which relate to the function or component to which such Operational Officer, Manager or Acting Manager is assigned which are of the same types as the contracts and other instruments listed in Paragraph (C) below.
(B) The Chairman of the Board and each of the Vice Chairmen of the Board is authorized to delegate to others authority to execute contracts and other instruments on behalf of the Company as he considers necessary and in the best interest of the Company.
(C) Each Authorized Person is hereby authorized to delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company the following types of contracts and other instruments which relate to the function or component for which such Authorized Person is responsible:
1. Sales, purchase and consignment contracts …
2. Installation, erection, and service contracts …
3. Assignments, waivers of lien, releases, guaranties, mortgages, indentures, credit agreements …
4. Contracts, leases, deeds, or other instruments relating to real property …
5. Powers of Attorney authorizing agents and attorneys to acquire and dispose of motor vehicles …
6. Powers of Attorney authorizing agents and attorneys to transact business of the Company with the U.S. Customs Service and with customs authorities in other countries.
(D) The Senior Vice President-Finance and the Vice President and Treasurer are each severally authorized to delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company the following types of instruments, and in connection therewith to establish, as appropriate, Company-wide procedures:
1. Agreements or other instruments relating to (a) investment of funds of the Company …
2. Checks, drafts, other payment authorizations and notes payable of the Company …
3. Guarantees of indebtedness of foreign or domestic affiliates of the Company …
E) The Senior Vice President-Finance and the Vice President and Comptroller are each severally authorized to delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the following types of contracts and other instruments:
1. Federal, State or local tax returns …
2. Reports of collections from employees and taxes due from the Company …
3. Applications, claims, surrender and other forms in connection with the General Electric Supplemental Life Insurance Program
4. Annual, financial and other reports required of the Administrator …
5. Such certifications, invoices, reports, releases and other instruments as are necessary to conform to requirements of the United States Government …
(F) The General Counsel is authorized to delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the following types of instruments:
1. Licences, contracts, assignments, releases, court pleadings and other instruments relating to inventions and technology and to patent, trademark and copyright matters.
2. Petitions, powers of attorney, authorizations, verifications, nominations of representatives, declarations, and other instruments relating to proceedings in the Patent, Trademark Registration or Copyright Offices servicing any country or region of the world, or to related appeal proceedings, or relating to maintenance and defense of the resulting industrial property rights, assignment of rights to apply for and acquire patents and trademark registrations, evidence of such assignments, requests for the registration of patents as available for licencing, reports of inventions and petitions for waiver of patent rights to any department or agency of the United States Government and assignments, licenses and other instruments confirmatory of Government rights in patents and inventions.
(G) Any contract, lease, deed or other instrument relating to real property or to any improvements located or to be located thereon may be executed on behalf of this Company by any of the following of the Global Asset Management division of GE Capital Real Estate: the Senior Vice President, Global Asset Management, the Managing Director-Corporate Properties and Services Operation, the Manager-Legal Operation of the Corporate Properties and Services Operation, or the Director-Corporate Real Estate of the Real Estate Services Operation.
H) Any delegations (including revocations and revisions) as authorized by this Resolution shall be in writing. Authority delegated pursuant to the last sentence of Paragraph (A) or pursuant to Paragraphs (B), (C), (D), (E) or (F) above may be redelegated by the persons to whom such delegations are made who in turn may authorize further redelegation; provided, however, that no such initial or subsequent redelegation shall be made except in conformity with the limitations imposed thereon by the initial delegation plus any restrictions contained in subsequent redelegations.
(I) The Secretary, the Associate Corporate Secretary and any Attesting Secretary are each severally authorized to affix the Corporate Seal to and attest to contracts and other instruments executed by persons acting pursuant to the authority granted by Paragraphs (A) or (G) above or pursuant to the authority delegated in accordance with Paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F) or (H) above. The Secretary, the Associate Corporate Secretary and any Attesting Secretary are also each severally authorized to certify as to the provisions of this Resolution, as to the incumbency of any person in any position within the Company and as to the terms of any delegation under this Resolution.
(J) Resolution #10502 dated June 28, 1985 is superseded effective as of April 26, 1988.
|
Reproduced below is the language of the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief. This document is also invalid because it incorrectly identifies K R Radhakrishnan, the alleged Attorney by wrongly describing him as son of K R Radhakrishnan and by recording his address incorrectly.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME WE, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY a company incorporated under the laws of the state of New York acting through its principal office at 3135Easton Turnpike, Fairfield, CT 06828, United States of America, hereinafter referred to as “the Grantor” (which expression shall, unless repugnant to the subject, meaning or context thereof, be deemed to include its successors in interest and assigns) SEND GREETINGS
WHEREAS:
|
Reproduced below is the language of the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson in 2013. This document is also invalid because it incorrectly identifies K R Radhakrishnan as “working as Company Secretary of GE Industrial India Private Limited” whereas the relevant Company’s name is GE India Industrial Private Limited. Here K Radhakrishnan’s age is given as 56 years in 2013 whereas in the Power of Attorney from 2012 his age is shown as 53 years. His affidavits from 2013 filed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 also mention his age as 53 years.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME WE, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY a company incorporated under the laws of the state of New York acting through its principal office at 3135Easton Turnpike, Fairfield, CT 06828, United States of America, hereinafter referred to as “the Grantor” (which expression shall, unless repugnant to the subject, meaning or context thereof, be deemed to include its successors in interest and assigns) state as follows:
WHEREAS:
|
Both these alleged Powers of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson have a curious clause. The Alexander Dimitrief Power of Attorney states:
“6. THE GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER DECLARES that the powers hereby conferred shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise affected by the fact of the Grantor acting either directly or through another agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained.’
A similar clause exists in the Bradford Berenson Power of Attorney. These clauses essentially provide that the instructions to the alleged attorney K R Radhakrishnan or to the AZB lawyers need not directly emanate from General Electric Company but might come via any number of layers of unnamed, unidentified, undisclosed and unknown intermediaries including other agents or attorneys. Therefore, these alleged powers of attorney also fail to provide or establish a direct link between K R Radhakrishnan and General Electric Company. Therefore, not only does K R Radhakrishnan have no direct knowledge of the facts involving General Electric Company, the actual source of his knowledge is also not General Electric Company but one or more of these unknown intermediaries, who themselves might have no official connection to General Electric Company.
These Powers of Attorney were therefore nothing but a device to create several degrees of separation and distance between Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and General Electric Company and between General Electric Company and its alleged attorney K R Radhakrishnan.
The above facts raise several issues. K R Radhakrishnan impersonated as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court, The Powers of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson produced before the Delhi High Court were invalid, illegal and fraudulent. The three vakalatnamas produced for General Electric Company were invalid, illegal and fraudulent. MrNanjuGanpathy and other lawyers who appeared for General Electric Company in this matter at different times (including Mr Rajiv Nayar, Mr Rakesh Tiku, MrAbhiskek Tiwari, Mr Manpreet Lamba, Mr Kartik Yadav) all appeared without authorization. All affidavits filed in this matter byMr K R Radhakrishnan purporting to be on behalf of General Electric Company were unauthorized, false, perjurious, hearsay and inadmissible.
In addition, these facts also raise the following important question of law:
Can a company like General Electric Company, one of the largest and richest corporations in the world, avoid appearing before an Indian court like the Delhi High Court in a writ petition seeking writs directing the Indian Government to act on complaints and evidence of corruption against the Company in a high value tender matter, by appointing an outsider as arms-length power of attorney to represent it in the proceedings. Does this not amount to avoiding the summons of the Court?
The Petitioner has accessed other Powers of Attorney or authority documents for General Electric Company publicly available on the internet and in all those documents, the document is duly attested by an attesting secretary of General Electric Company. No such attestation by an attesting secretary of General Electric Company appears on the alleged Powers of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson and produced before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
All the applications filed by the petitioner setting out the above objections to the authority documents for K R Radhakrishnan and Advocate NanjuGanpathy were simply adjourned by several Delhi High Court Benches and were never considered or taken up for hearing in the three years during which Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 remained pending in the Delhi High Court.
|
18. Facts about the fake authority documents for GE India Industrial Private Limited filed in Delhi High Court and the fraud committed in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private Limited are briefly set out below.
One K Radhakrishnan impersonated as authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 using fraudulent authority documents.
GE India Industrial Private Limited is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of the US conglomerate General Electric Company. Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to GE India Industrial Private Limited on 7.3.2012.
Advocate NanjuGanpathy appeared on 9.5.2012 claiming to represent GE India Industrial Private Limited and continued to appear thereafter. MrNanjuGanpathy is a Partner in the law-firm AZB & Partners.
Affidavits were filed on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited through one K Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited were produced.
The counter- affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 3.7.2012 merely stated that K Radhakrishnan was the authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited. The affidavit contained a verification clause which was signed but not affirmed before an oath commissioner. Another two-page affidavit of K Radhakrishnan was filed with this unverified counter-affidavit which merely stated that K Radhakrishnan was the authorised signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited in the matter “pursuant to the powers of attorney executed in my favour in this regard”. No power of attorney or any other authority document was annexed to this counter-affidavit which otherwise contained thirteen annexures with the affidavit itself running into 206 pages.
At Appellant's request, Delhi High Court order dated 12.10.2012 directed NanjuGanpathy to produce authority documents to show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
NanjuGanpathy filed a photocopy of a document on 19.10.2012 which was described as a board resolution dated 7 May 2012 passed by GE India Industrial Private Limited and which was effective up to 31.3.2013. No power of attorney was produced for GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been filed so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi High Court registry shows a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and was defective and invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75]
The Supreme Court of India in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75] has ruled that a vakalatnama on behalf of a company must either bear the company seal or it must mention the name and designation of the person signing the vakalatnama (on behalf of the company) below the signature AND a copy of the authority must be annexed to the vakalatnama. The Supreme Court further ruled that if a vakalatnama is executed by a power-of-attorney holder of a party, the failure to disclose that it is being executed by an attorney holder and the failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney will render the vakalatnama defective.
CM 19683/2012 filed by Appellant on 14.12.2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and did not annex the required authority documents.
A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This vakalatnama was signed by K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory for GE India Industrial Private Limited.
K Radhakrishnan also filed two affidavits dated 17.12.2012 on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
The first affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 17.12.2012 was a reply to CM 18642/ 2012 (it begins at page 3874 of the of the Delhi High Court record). This affidavit contained the following statement at page 3878 of the court record:
In this affidavit, K Radhakrishnan therefore clearly admitted that no power of attorney in his favor had been issued on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited pursuant to the Board Resolution dated 7.5.2012. A bare perusal of the Board Resolutions dated 7.5.2012 shows that it clearly contemplated the execution of a power of attorney in favor of K Radhakrishnan.
The admitted non-execution of a power of attorney in favor of K Radhakrishnan on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited shows that K Radhakrishnan was never appointed as the attorney of GE India Industrial Private Limited for the purpose of this writ petition and he was not authorized to sign the vakalatnamas and court pleadings on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Further the board resolution dated 7.5.2012 which was produced as an authority document by K Radhakrishnan did not even cover the Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 filed in the Delhi High Court by the Appellant against General Electric Company.
The “Proceedings” covered by the Board Resolutions dated 7.5.2012 therefore did not include the writ petition filed by the Appellant against GE India Industrial Private Limited as the subject matter of theseboard resolutions was limited to proceedings that GE India Industrial Private Limited might initiate against the Appellant.
The fraud that was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court is extremely evident. In the first instance, the source of K Radhakrishnan’s authority to represent GE India Industrial Private Limited was described as a power of attorney in his favor in his affidavits but this document was not produced.Vakalatnamas were not filed.
A board resolution dated 7.5.2012 was then produced (after being compelled by a court order) which however did not cover the writ petition proceeding and which envisaged the execution of a power of attorney and which (as admitted on affidavit later) was never executed. Vakalatnama was not filed. Affidavits were signed and filed by K Radhakrishnan even though he was not duly constituted as the attorney for GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Once the Appellant pointed out these deficiencies on the court record of the writ petition, a second attempt at fraudulently deceiving the court was attempted by producing a board resolution dated 17.12.2012 which misrepresents itself as a power of attorney.
An affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 17.12.2012 produced a copy of what was described as another Board Resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 17.12.2012. K Radhakrishnan now claimed to be the constituted attorney for GE India Industrial Private Limited under this Board Resolution dated 17.12,2012.
This new alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 is a strange document that masquerades as a power of attorney by itself. It records that the consent of the Boards of GE India Industrial Private Limited is accorded to authorise and appoint K Radhakrishnan (the Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited) as the attorney of the Company interalia to defend proceedings initiated against the Company by Ms. Seema Sapra in the Delhi High Court. This board resolution does not contain the usual provision that contemplates and authorises the execution of a power of attorney instrument.
Instead in its final paragraph, this board resolution claims to be the power of attorney instrument itself and states: “RESOLVED FURTHER THAT this power of attorney is governed by, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of India and shall remain in full force and effect until it is revoked by the company in writing or until December 16, 2014 whichever occurs earlier”.
The copies of the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 placed on record were not certified and authenticated as per usual practice and law. The certified minutes containing these board resolutions were not produced.
A comparison of the photocopies of the letterheads containing the two alleged board resolutions for GE India Industrial Private Limited which were filed raises the suspicion that these documents were not genuine. The alleged board resolution dated 7.5.2012 does not bear the company seal. The GE logo on the letterhead on which these board resolutions are printed is illegible. The persons who have signed these documents dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 are not identified. The letterhead on which the alleged board resolution for GE India dated 17.12.2012 is printed has a blurred and obscured GE logo. Prima facie it appears that the documents filed as board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 are forged and unauthentic.
The board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 omitted to mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the nature/ character/ subject matter of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
The fact of this fraud committed on the Delhi High Court is further confirmed by a strange provision in the board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012. Both these board resolutions provide that the powers conferred “shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise affected by the fact of the Company acting either directly or through another agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained”.
This illegal and invalid clause was obviously inserted to allow for “unauthorized” instructions to be sent to K R Radhakrishnan and NanjuGanpathy which were not sent directly from GE India but via other unidentified and unknown persons/ intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple layers of separation between the Company (and its legal officers) and court proceedings in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280. 2012 were maintained.
NanjuGanpahy filed another vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 also signed by K Radhakrishnan. This vakalatnama also relied upon the alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 to establish K Radhakrishnan’s authority to act as attorney for GE India.
The Appellant filed CM 10493 of 2013 on 19.7.2013 placing the above facts and objections on record and objecting to K Radhakrishnan being allowed to represent GE India and objecting to NanjuGanpathy appearing for GE India. This application was unfortunately not taken up for hearing.
On 21.11.2014, the Appellant moved another application being CM No. 18969 of 2014 again seeking directions on these issues. This was also unfortunately adjourned by the Court without being taken up despite the appellant’s requests that orders were necessary on these issues.
Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012 went before a new Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji on 19.1.2015. It was adjourned to 20 and then 22 January 2015. On all these three days, the Bench held a formal hearing for about an hour but the appellant was not permitted to argue the matter. The Bench was insistent that the matter had become infructuous. The Bench did not allow Ms. Seema Sapra to argue her case, and repeatedly kept interrupting her. For most of these three hours spread over three days, Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P. S Teji kept repeating that the matter was infructuous. They repeatedly interrupted Ms. Seema Sapra to prevent her from arguing the case. The matter was then adjourned to 3.2.2015.
On 19.1.2015, when Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 went before Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji, all the alleged authority documents filed for the three General Electric respondents had also expired by lapse of time on the following dates.
Despite the Appellant’s objections, orders dated 19, 20 and 22 January 2015 passed by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P S Teji recorded the appearance of Manpreet Lamba for GE India Industrial Private Limited, General Electric Company and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited. The Appellant therefore declared her intent to impugn these orders in a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of India and applied for certified copies of these orders. This intent was also communicated by the Appellant to Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P S Teji on 19, 20, and 22 January 2015. The matter was adjourned to 3 February 2015.
The petitioner was being poisoned and was poisoned again in this interregnum.
The petitioner learnt that on 28 January 2015, some document described in the court’s electronic filing system as “vakalatnama” was filed under the name of NanjuGanpathy in this matter under diary no. 37442/2015. The Petitioner repeatedly requestedMrNanjuGanpathyto supply copies of these documents to the Petitioner but he did not respond.
The Petitioner therefore inspected the court record on 29 January 2015 and looked at the new documents filed through NanjuGanpathy on 28 January 2015 which had been placed in the court file in folder B.
The Petitioner then filed CM 1882 of 2015 addressing these new alleged authority documents which were actually completely irrelevant documents being passed off as authority documents. The petitioner also sought copies of these documents. This application was listed before the High Court on 3.2.2015. The petitioner also applied for certified copies of the new alleged authority documents filed on 28.1.2015. On 2.2.2015 at around 4 pm, NanjuGanpathy sent scanned copies of these new authority documents filed on 28.1.2015 to the Petitioner. These were incomplete as the scans excluded the edges of the documents.
Before addressing these new alleged authority documents filed on 28.1.2015, the nature of the hearing on 3.2.2015 is described below.
On 3.2.2015, Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji insisted that the Petitioner address the Court on the merits of the case. They then held another hearing for about an hour and a half and suddenly cut off the petitioner who had commenced arguments on the issue of the corruption involving General Electric Company, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Vinod Sharma and declared that they could not give the petitioner further time. They rose and declared that judgment was being reserved. The Petitioner objected stating she had just started her arguments. The Bench ignored her and walked out.
CM 1882 of 2015 and the earlier applications on the issue of appearance by the General Electric respondents were not taken up for hearing on 3.2.2015 or decided.
What were the new documents filed on 28.1.2015?
No new “vakalatnama” was filed. Three documents were filed which were described in the table of contents as:
The first document is what purports to be a Power of Attorney in favor of K Radhakrishnan allegedly executed by Tejal Patil on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited, who is described therein as a Director. This alleged POA is dated 8/12/2014 and described as being valid until 30/9/2015.
This alleged PoA has not been executed on non-judicial stamp paper and is also not notarized. No company stamp is affixed. It bears signatures of two witnesses named as Ira Shukla and Shweta Malhotra without any information about who these witnesses are or their addresses. The typing, font and formatting on the first and second page of this document do not match and are different. On the face of it, this POA is invalid, forged and fraudulent.
This alleged POA refers to a Board Resolution dated 10/9/14 and claims to have been executed pursuant to this Board Resolution dated 10/9/14.
This document does not mention WP Civil 1280/2012, or OMP 647/2012, or the alleged arbitration before Mr Deepak Verma, or the alleged complaint which was already made to the Bar Council of Delhi against Ms Seema Sapra.
The opening paragraph of this alleged Power of Attorney reads:
Note that this alleged Power of Attorney dated 8.12.2014 did in any case not cover the proceedings in Writ Petition Civil No.1280/2012 instituted against GE India by Ms. Seema Sapra as it was limited to proceedings that GE India might institute against Ms. Seema Sapra.
This power of attorney is not printed on stamp paper issued to GE India Industrial Private Limited and it appears as if revenue stamps have been affixed to this document to give it the appearance of a stamped document.
The second document filed is what is described as a board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 10/9/14 which merely refers to another earlier alleged board resolution dated 27/9/12 and purports to extend the validity of the latter resolution to 30/9/15. This is reproduced below.
The third document filed is what is also described as a board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 26/9/13 which merely refers to an earlier board resolution dated 27/9/12 and purports to extend the validity of the latter resolution to 30/9/14. This is reproduced below.
So the new documents filed on 28.1.2015 were the following:
i. An alleged and indisputably invalid, unstamped and un-notarized Power of Attorney executed by Tejal Patil in favor of K R Radhakrishnan which did not apply to Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012.
ii. An alleged Board resolution dated 26.9.2013 which merely extends an earlier board resolution dated 27.8.012 which was not produced.
iii. An alleged Board resolution dated 10.9.2014 which merely extends an earlier board resolution dated 27.8.012 which was not produced.
The new alleged board resolutions dated 26.9.2013 and 10.9.2014 filed on 28.1.2015 refer to a board resolution dated 27.8.2012 which was not produced.
The two alleged board resolutions dated 10.9.14 and 26.9.2013 merely refer to an earlier alleged resolution dated 27.9.12 and purport to extend the latter’s validity, which itself has not been produced and whose contents are therefore unknown. So we do not know for what purpose if any, was K Radhakrishnan sought to be appointedas attorney of GE India Industrial Private Limited by the alleged board resolution dated 27.9.2012. The failure to produce this alleged board resolution dated 27/9/12 can only mean that no such resolution exists or if it does exist, it is irrelevant.
There is another very important fact that establishes the fraud committed on the Delhi High Court. The Tejal Patil POA dated 8/12/2014 and the two board resolutions dated 10.9.14 and 26.9.2013 read together refer back to an earlier alleged resolution dated 27.9.12 for the alleged authority granted by the GE India Industrial Private Limited for the execution of a power of attorney in favor of K R Radhakrishnan.
However, the document filed by NanjuGanpathy before the Delhi High Court on 19/10/2012 pursuant to a court direction was a copy of the alleged copy of the purported board resolution dated 7 May 2012 of GE India Industrial Private Limited. Why was the alleged board resolution dated 27.9.12 not filed in 2012?
So in 2012, NanjuGanpathy claimed before the Delhi High Court that the board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited authorizing the execution of the Power of Attorney in favor of K R Radhakrishnan was dated 7 May 2012 and this was filed in Court on 19/10/2012. It was then admitted in January 2013 on affidavit that a power of attorney envisaged by this board resolution was never executed. Next it was stated that a Board Resolution dated 17/12/2012 doubling also as a power of attorney was the document that authorized K R Radhakrishnan to act as the authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited. A copy of this document was also filed.
But in 2015, the authority for the purported Tejal Patil Power of Attorney (unstamped and un-notarized) produced for GE India Industrial Private Limited is stated to be a board resolution dated 27/9/2012 and this board resolution is not produced.
The fraud played on the Delhi High Court could not be more clearly established than in this case.
The fraud played on the Delhi High Court by the impersonator K Radhakrishnan falsely claiming to be the authorised signatory of GE India stands further exposed and established even by the last desperate attempt to file further fraudulent and irrelevant alleged authority documents on record behind the back of the petitioner on 28.1.2015.
A summary of the various authority documents which Advocate NanjuGanpathy produced for K R Radhakrishnan in respect of GE India Industrial Private Limited establishes the fraud beyond doubt.
|
19. It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a legal entity or a company in court proceedings without being duly authorised in accordance with law and without producing such duly executed authority documents. It is also basic and settled law that no lawyer can represent a party in court proceedings without placing on the record a vakalatnama in his favor duly executed by such party or by its duly authorised signatory.
20. No Court has the power or discretion to allow a company to be represented in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and sufficient authority documents, has failed to establish his authority to represent the company, and who has produced invalid, false, forged and fabricated authority documents. The Court also has no power or discretion to permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and valid vakalatnama.
21. The judgment was issued in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 by the Bench of Judge Valmiki and Judge P.S. Teji on 3.3.2015 wrongfully dismissed the petition as infructuous.
22. This judgment also contained the following statement in paragraph 19 -
“In addition to the above applications there are various other applications filed by the petitioner effectively alleging that the lawyers of respondents no.1,6 and 7 and the attorney empowered by the Board’s resolutions of respondent nos. 1,6 and 7 have no right to represent these respondents though there have been filed on record the vakalatnamas, the power of attorneys by GE companies in favour of their officers, notifications and copies of the resolutions of the GE companies authorizing their officers to conduct the present and other litigations initiated by the present petitioner. These applications are as under:-“
“In addition to the above applications there are various other applications filed by the petitioner effectively alleging that the lawyers of respondents no.1,6 and 7 and the attorney empowered by the Board’s resolutions of respondent nos. 1,6 and 7 have no right to represent these respondents though there have been filed on record the vakalatnamas, the power of attorneys by GE companies in favour of their officers, notifications and copies of the resolutions of the GE companies authorizing their officers to conduct the present and other litigations initiated by the present petitioner. These applications are as under:-“
23. The judgement then proceeded to merely reproduce the prayer clauses of CM 18642/2012, 19370/2012, 19683/2012, 522/2013, 10483/2013, CM 1882/2015.
24. This then is how the Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji have dealt with the applications pointing out that the authority documents filed for the General Electric respondents were invalid. Instead of hearing and deciding these 9 pending applications on merits, this Bench prevented the petitioner from arguing these issues, reserved judgment without a hearing, did not accord any hearing on the applications, and in its judgment failed to deal with the submissions of the petitioner, and with the material and evidence on record. It further included the statement in paragraph 19 which conveys the incorrect impression as if this issue was examined by the court and as if the petitioner’s applications were meritless. Note that this paragraph in the judgment does not examine the submissions of the petitioner on these authority documents in her 9 pending applications nor does it examine whether these authority documents filed were invalid, defective, fraudulent or irrelevant as the petitioner had contended and as elaborated hereinabove; instead the paragraph merely records that ‘authority documents’ were filed. Without hearing the petitioner and without even referring to her submissions, paragraph 19 of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 wrongly conveys the impression that K R Radhakrishnan was duly authorised to represent the three General Electric respondents and that NanjuGanpathy was authorized to appear as lawyer for the General Electric respondents.
25. Admittedly, the alleged authority documents filed in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 for General Electric Company had expired and ceased to be valid on 29 April 2014.
26. Admittedly, the alleged authority documents filed in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 for GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited had expired and ceased to be valid on 17 December 2014.
27. Admittedly the alleged authority documents filed in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 for GE India Industrial Private Limited were inconsistent with each other and therefore clearly pointing to a fraud.
28. The petitioner also submits that it is settled law that a power of attorney holder cannot depose or provide evidence on behalf of the principal.
29. All the applications filed by the petitioner setting out the above objections to the authority documents for K R Radhakrishnan and the vakalatnama for Advocate NanjuGanpathy were simply adjourned by several Delhi High Court Benches and were never considered or taken up for hearing in the three years during which Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 remained pending in the Delhi High Court.
30. The appellant seeks to place the annexed documents on the court record before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as they establish essential facts relevant to the hearing of the present appeal and to the general administration of justice. The appellant is a whistle-blower who has exposed corruption, fraud, forgery and bribery by General Electric Company in connection with the Indian Railways’ diesel locomotive factory Project at Marhowra which has been awarded to General Electric Company. These documents show that a criminal conspiracy was put into effect to sabotage the hearing of the appellant’s whistle-blower and right to life petition before the Delhi High Court, Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012, by committing a fraud on the Delhi High Court in connection with the representation of General Electric Company and its two subsidiaries, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited.
31. There are other relevant facts in connection with this criminal conspiracy that resulted in K R Radhakrishnan unlawfully and fraudulently impersonating as General Electric Company’s authorized signatory before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. These will also be placed before this Hon’ble Court.
32. The criminal conspiracy and the fraud committed on the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 established by the attached documents is a clear reason for the continued threat to life faced by the whistle-blower/ appellant. The Delhi High Court Bench that disposed of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 did not permit the petitioner to argue on these issues and this fraud, perjury, forgery and unlawful impersonation before the Delhi High Court was covered up as a result of the judgment issued in WP Civil 1280/2012 which is silent on these issues. These and other false authority documents were used to facilitate the filing of false, perjurious and unauthorized affidavits for General Electric Company in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
33. The appellant is being poisoned and is being deliberately forced to remain homeless. Her right to work and earn a livelihood is being deliberately obstructed. She is being poisoned and hounded daily. She is being compelled to literally beg lawyers for money to survive. The State authorities including intelligence and police agencies are complicit in targeting the appellant. The appellant’s life is in grave and immediate danger, including because of the criminal conspiracy disclosed by the attached documents read along with the memo of appeal.
34. The appellant’s life is in grave danger because of this and the other frauds and corruption she exposed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
35. The consequences of this particular fraud are serious for and implicate current and former employees of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (including their former and current in-house lawyers), and for current and former lawyers of the law-firm AZB & Partners including Ms Zia Mody, the daughter of lawyer and former Attorney General Mr Soli Sorabjee who had threatened the petitioner in February/ March 2011 with physical harm and told her not to pursue her whistle-blower corruption complaints against General Electric Company and had threatened her saying that her health would be destroyed and that she would never be allowed to work again. These persons will end up in prison and some of them will end up disbarred from the practice of law. Lawyers from the US law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher are also involved in this fraud.
36. This fraud alone will also result in General Electric getting disqualified and blacklisted from the diesel locomotive project at Marhowra and from all other Government of India Projects.
37. This fraud alone is enough reason for the ongoing threat to the life of the appellant-whistle-blower-
38. The Appellant continues to be poisoned again. Highly poisonous chemical fumes and gases including anesthetic agents, chemical neurotoxins, organophosphates, nerve agents, acidic chemical fumes and highly poisonous pesticides are being released in very large quantities into her hotel room. There is an ongoing conspiracy and attempt to murder the appellant. The Appellant relies upon her complaints being emailed to the Police and communicated through her blog and through Twitter.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Applicationand:-
- To permit the appellant to place on record the attached documents enumerated in paragraphs10, 11, and 12 of the present application as these are the fraudulent, invalid and forged authority documents filed before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 on behalf of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited;
- 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:9/08/2018
FILED ON: 9/08/2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL DIARY NO. 10342 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL DIARY NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEE*MA SAPRA
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, aged 46 years, D/o Late A. R. Sapra, presently homeless in New Delhi, do hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:
1. That I am the Appellant/ Petitioner and am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case and am competent and authorized to swear this Affidavit.
2. That I have drafted, read and understood the accompanying Application to bring on record the forged, invalid and fraudulent authority documents filed in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 for General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited and I state that the contents of the application are based on my personal knowledge and on other sources which I believe to be true and correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the aboveAffidavit 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 9thday of August2018.
DEPONENT
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:13 AM
To: Mukul Rohatgi; Kapil Sibal; Rajesh R; Dushyant Dave; rkpslaw@hotmail.com; knbhat@yahoo.com; rameshsingh66@gmail.com; Rebecca John; Gourab Banerji; kaminijaiswal@hotmail.com; phurbu@gauravpachnanda.com; secretary@pachnanda.in; vikas@pahwa.co.in; vigneaswara@yahoo.com; pradeepkumarpradeep@hotmail.
Cc: seema sapra; Sapra Consultants
Subject: New Application filed by General Electric Company whistle-blower Seema Sapra in Criminal Appeal Diary No. 10342/ 2016 listed before Supreme Court on 10 August 2018
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:13 AM
To: Mukul Rohatgi; Kapil Sibal; Rajesh R; Dushyant Dave; rkpslaw@hotmail.com; knbhat@yahoo.com; rameshsingh66@gmail.com; Rebecca John; Gourab Banerji; kaminijaiswal@hotmail.com; phurbu@gauravpachnanda.com; secretary@pachnanda.in; vikas@pahwa.co.in; vigneaswara@yahoo.com; pradeepkumarpradeep@hotmail.
Cc: seema sapra; Sapra Consultants
Subject: New Application filed by General Electric Company whistle-blower Seema Sapra in Criminal Appeal Diary No. 10342/ 2016 listed before Supreme Court on 10 August 2018
I have filed the attached application also reproduced below in the Supreme Court today in Criminal Appeal Diary No. 10342/2016 under diary number 112422/2018. This matter is listed before the Supreme Court tomorrow.
Seema Sapra
General Electric Company whistle-blower
No comments:
Post a Comment