IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. 437 OF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF Seema Sapra … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Others …Respondents WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS/ ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER on how lawyers from the law-firm named Inttl Advocare are appearing in this matter for Google LLC without valid authority documents, without a valid Power of Attorney, and without a valid vakalatnama and are doing so in violation of several applicable and binding judgments of the Courts and of Bar Council of India Rules 1. Lawyers from the law-firm Inttl Advocare who have appeared or have entered appearance for Google LLC in the present Writ Petition Criminal 437/2018 include the lawyers listed on the Vakalatnama dated 6 April 2018 and described as Advocates of the law-firm Inttl Advocare having its Office at Express Trade Tower, B-36, Sector – 132, Noida Expressway, Noida 201303, National Capital Region of Delhi INDIA Phone +91 120 2470200 - 298 (Extn. 124) inttl@inttladvocare.com The lawyers listed on the vakalatnama are the following: Mr Hemant Singh Ms Preetika Singh Ms Mamta R Jha Mr Manish Mishra Ms Shilpa Arora Mr Pranav Narain Mr Waseem Shuaib Ahmed Mr Abhijeet Rastogi Mr Vipul K Tiwari Mr Ankit Arvind Ms Shruttima Ehersa Ms Akansha Singh Mr Rohan Krishnan Ms Saumya Gupta Ms Shreya Khandelwal |
2. In addition to the above Advocates, certain other lawyers have appeared or entered their appearance in this matter for Google LLC and their names are mentioned in various court orders. These include the following: Mr Sajan Poovayya Sr. Advocate Ms. Priyadarshi Bannerjee Ms. Roshnara Rauf Mr. Pratibhanu S. Kharola Ms. Sakshi Shalini Ms. Sakshi Jhalani Mr Rohan Ahuja Mr Vatsalya Vishal Ms Amishi Sodani |
3. Despite the mention of so many names in the Vakalatnama and in Court orders, the three lawyers who have actually appeared for Google LLC in this case are Sajan Poovayya Sr Advocate, Mamta Jha and Shruttima Ehersa. Shruttima Ehersa has been the constant and has argued for Google LLC in this matter except when Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appeared. 4. The filings in this matter on behalf of Google LLC include the following: 5. The Power of Attorney dated 8 March 2018 that has been produced in favour of Mr Yashwant Rai Grover as Constituted Attorney of Google LLC is on its own terms valid only for Civil Proceedings pending before Courts of Civil Jurisdiction. This Power of Attorney is therefore not valid for the present matter which is a Criminal Writ Petition bearing number 437/2018 being heard by the Delhi High Court in its Criminal Jurisdiction. This Power of Attorney therefore cannot be used in these proceedings or relied upon to execute the vakalatnana in the present proceedings which are criminal proceedings. Mr Yashwant Rai Grover has no authority to act as the Constituted Attorney for Google LLC in this case. The Vakalatnama dated 6 April 2018 executed by Mr Yashwant Rai Grover is therefore invalid on this ground alone. 6. The Power of Attorney dated 8 March 2018 contains the following statement: “I further state that neither the present Power of Attorney nor any past Power of Attorney or document executed on behalf of the Company may be deemed to either render the Attorney as an agent for service on or for receiving any summons or notices or any documents or pleadings in any manner on behalf of the Company”. The Petitioner submits that neither Mr Yashwant Rai Grover nor any lawyers appointed under a vakalatnama signed by him had any authority to accept any notice or document or pleading on behalf of Google LLC. 7. The Delhi High Court issued notice in the present writ petition to Google LLC and Google India by order dated 12 February 2018. 8. The Petitioner received the following email from Ms Mamta Rani Jha of Inttl Advocare on 21 March 2018. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mamta <mamta@inttladvocare.com> Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:44 PM Subject: SEEMA SAPRA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, W.P. (CRL) 437/2018 PENDING BEFORE HIGH COURT OF DELHI [Our Ref: HC/2175] To: sapraconsultants@gmail.com <sapraconsultants@gmail.com>, seema.sapra@gmail.com <seema.sapra@gmail.com> Cc: Hemant Singh <hemant@inttladvocare.com>, Pranav Narain <pranav@inttladvocare.com>, Shruttima Ehersa <shruttima@inttladvocare.com> Dear Ms. Sapra, We represent our client Google LLC, Respondent No. 5, in the captioned matter. For any further communication, you may please contact us. With warm regards, Mamta Rani Jha Partner & Head – Litigation |
9. The Order passed on 27 April 2018 is reproduced below. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 437/2018 SEEMA SAPRA ... Petitioner Represented by: Petitioner in person versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr.Sajan Poovayya, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Priyadarshi Bannerjee, Ms.Mamta R.Jha and Ms.Shruttinaa, Advocates for respondent No.5 Insp.Sanjay Kumar, PS Saket CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA O R D E R 27.04.2018 No steps have been taken for service of respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6. However, learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 enters appearance. The main prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is removal of the anonymous blog from blogger at Google titled as ‘Seema Sapra Alert’ and published at ‘http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.in/’. Considering the contents of the blog which are totally uncalled for and unwarranted, respondent No.5 is directed to remove the anonymous blog as noted above. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 fairly states that since respondent No.5 has entered appearance and all necessary details can be provided by respondents No.5, respondent No.6 is not a necessary party. In this view of the matter, no notice be issued to respondent No.6. In the meantime, respondents No.1 and 2 be served through the Standing Counsel, Union of India and respondent No.3 be served through the Standing Counsel (Criminal), Govt. of NCT of Delhi by the petitioner. Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3. Copy of the petition be supplied to learned Standing Counsel within two days. Status Report be filed before the next date. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 assures that any cooperation which is required in the investigation of the matter, will be rendered to respondent No.3. List on 1st November, 2018. MUKTA GUPTA, J. APRIL 27, 2018 |
10. The Petitioner submits that the lawyers who appeared for Google LLC on 27 April 2018 did so without authority and without a valid vakalatnama. These lawyers were Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Priyadarshi Bannerjee, Ms. Mamta R.Jha and Ms. Shruttima Ehersa. The submissions and statements made by Mr Sajan Poovayya to the Court during this hearing on 27 April 2018 were unauthorised. 11. The following statement was made by Mr Sajan Poovayya on behalf of Google LLC during the hearing on 27 April 2018. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 fairly states that since respondent No.5 has entered appearance and all necessary details can be provided by respondents No.5, respondent No.6 is not a necessary party. In this view of the matter, no notice be issued to respondent No.6. |
12. It is submitted that neither Mr Sajan Poovayya nor his briefing counsel had any authority to appear for or speak for Google LLC (respondent 5), and that this statement made by Mr Sajan Poovayya to the Court during the hearing on 27 April 2018 was not only unauthorised but also inaccurate. An incorrect statement was made by Mr Sajan Poovayya that participation of Google India (respondent 6) was not necessary in the present Writ Petition. The Court did not issue notice to Google India because of this unauthorised and incorrect statement made by lawyers who had no authority to make this statement or to represent or make submissions on behalf of Google LLC. The absence of Google India from these proceedings has facilitated the fraudulent attempted sabotage of the present proceedings. 13. The Petitioner therefore prays that fresh notice be issued both to Google LLC and Google India. 14. Mr Yashwant Rai Grover, the Constituted Attorney of Google LLC under the Power of Attorney dated 8 March 2018 is an Associate in the Law-firm Intll Advocare. The Power of Attorney states that it will terminate once Yashwant Rai Grover is no longer an employee of the firm or no longer serves in the same capacity at the firm. We can assume that the reference to the “firm” in the Power of Attorney is to the law-firm Intll Advocare. Mr Hemant Singh is the Founder and Managing Partner of Intll Advocare. Ms Mamta Jha is Senior Partner in Intll Advocare. Ms Shruttima Ehersa is an Associate in Intll Advocare. 15. The Petitioner submits that the same person cannot simultaneously act as the Constituted Attorney of a Party and also the counsel/ advocate of that Party before a Court of Law in India. The word “person” in this proposition would include a Law Firm Partnership and its partners/ members as well as all retained/ salaried lawyers, including non-partner associates of the firm. For this proposition of law, the Petitioner relies upon (i) the Delhi High Court decision in Anil Kumar and Anr vs Amit rendered on 17 November, 2021; (ii) the Delhi High Court decision in Baker Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Baker Hughes Ltd. & Ors., 2011 (47) PTC 296 (Del); and (iii) on the Bar Council of India Rules. The relevant extract from Anil Kumar and Anr vs Amit is reproduced below. “6. The question these petitions was whether Mr. Amarjeet Singh Sahni, who was acting as the power of attorney holder of the Plaintiff, Mr. Amit Ved/Plaintiff/Respondent herein (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), and had verified the plaint on behalf of the said Plaintiff could appear also as a counsel in the matter. In C.R.P. 75/2020, vide order of the Court dated 13th July, 2021, Mr. Sahni submitted that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama and continue as the power of attorney holder and he would no longer act as a counsel for the Plaintiff. He again assures this Court that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama in the Trial Court proceedings and he would no longer act as a counsel for the Plaintiff in this matter. He submits that he shall take steps within 2 weeks for substitution of the Vakalatnama by a new counsel. 7. It is made clear that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients, as also as advocates in the matter is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Any advocate who is engaged by a client would have to play only one role, i.e., that of the advocate in the proceedings and cannot act as a power of attorney holder and verify pleadings and file applications or any other documents or give evidence on behalf of his client. This aspect has to be scrupulously ensured by all the Trial Courts. This legal position has been settled by various decisions. In Baker Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Baker Hughes Ltd. & Ors., 2011 (47) PTC 296 (Del), the Court held: "Thus as is manifest from the said rule, it would be a professional misconduct if a lawyer were to don two hats at the same time. However not only that, the partnership firms have a hurdle for acting in the said two capacities even under The Partnership Act, as every partner in a partnership firm is an agent of another and if one were to be acting as an advocate for a client, the rest would also be in the same capacity by virtue of agency and the same would be the situation in case of an advocate acting as a client. However, it cannot be forgotten by any who has ever been graced with the honour of wearing the robe that the lawyer is first an officer of the court and his prime duty is to assist the court in the administration of justice. The rules of conduct as per the Bar Council Of India Rules may act as a guardian angel for ensuring the moral conduct of the lawyers but the legacy of the traditions of the Bar cannot be bedaubed by a few for the lucre of commercial gains. A lawyer cannot forget that this is called a noble profession not only because by virtue of this he enjoys an aristocratic position in the society but also because it obligates him to be worthy of the confidence of the community in him as a vehicle of achieving justice. The rules of conduct of this profession with its ever expanding horizons are although governed by the Bar Council of India Rules but more by the rich traditions of the Bar and by the cannons of conscience of the members of the calling of justice of being the Samaritans of the society. Thus the foreign companies and firms must respect the laws of this land and the solicitors and law firms are equally not expected to discharge their duties as clients for these foreign companies/firms. Law is not a trade and briefs no merchandise and so the avarice of commercial gains should not malign this profession. Hence there can be no divergent view on the legal proposition that an Advocate cannot act in the dual capacity, that of a constituted attorney and an advocate." |
16. The Power of Attorney filed for Google LLC in this matter is in favour of Mr Yashwant Rai Grover as Constituted Attorney. Mr Yashwant Rai Grover is an associate lawyer in the law firm Intll Advocare. Therefore, other lawyers of Intll Advocare including its Managing Partner, other Partners, and Associates cannot appear as Counsel for Google LLC in the present case. The Vakalatnama executed by Intll Advocare Lawyer Mr Yashwant Rai Grover in favour of his employers and colleagues at Intll Advocare is invalid and against Bar Council of India rules. 17. All the lawyers associated with the law-firm Intll Advocare whose name appears on the vakalatnama or who have appeared for Google LLC in this matter or whose name appears in Court Orders as having appeared for Google LLC had/ have no authority to represent Google LLC as Counsel in the present case before the Delhi High Court. All Court appearances by them and all submissions/ representations/ filings made by them in the present case in the Delhi High Court were made without authorization by Google LLC and therefore cannot be accepted by the Court. 18. Inttl Advocare has also filed a copy of a certificate dated 2 May 2019 of one Ms Lily Kley under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on 9 May 2019 under the name of Ms Manta Jha Advocate of Intll Advocare. This certificate is also fraudulent (this aspect will be dealt with separately) and it is in any case an unauthorised filing which cannot be accepted by the Court. The Petitioner will deal with this certificate separately in detail, but she draws the attention of the Court to the fact that this certificate also inaccurately refers to an order of this Court as having been passed in civil suit number 437/2018, whereas the present proceedings are Writ Petition Criminal 437/2018. 19. In her earlier Preliminary Written Submissions dated 6 March 2023, the Petitioner inter alia stated the following about the conduct of the lawyers appearing for Google LLC: “… 12. Certain lawyers have appeared for Google LLC in this matter. They have chosen to remain silent on who deleted the Blog, and have not attempted to correct the misrepresentation by the Delhi Police that the Blog was deleted by Google. Prima facie it appears as if the lawyers who have appeared for Google LLC in this matter are part of the criminal conspiracy to scuttle any investigation. … 15. The Petitioner points out that the failure of the lawyers appearing for Google LLC to correct this falsehood floated in the Police Status Report dated 25 October 2018 is suspicious and leads to the inference that the lawyers appearing for Google LLC have obstructed the administration of justice. …” |
20. The lawyers from Intll Advocare have not only appeared for Google LLC in this case without a valid vakalatnama or authorization, thereby impersonating as counsel for Google LLC, but they have also attempted to scuttle any investigation, have misdirected the Court and the Police, and have participated in the fabrication and filing of false evidence. The conduct of the lawyers from Inttl Advocare in the present case amounts to serious criminal misconduct amounting to the commission of offences for fabrication of evidence under Section 192 Indian Penal Code, fabrication of false evidence for use in a judicial proceeding under Section 193 Indian Penal Code, using evidence known to be false under Section 196 Indian Penal Code, using as true a certificate known to be false under Section 198 Indian Penal Code, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender under Section 201 Indian Penal Code and other offences of the Indian Penal Code. A separate note will address in detail the acts of omission and commission (amounting to these offences) by the lawyers from Inttl Advocare who have appeared for Google LLC in this matter without legal authority. 21. The Petitioner 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 Writ Petition heard by this Hon’ble Court. 22. The Petitioner’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. The present petition itself contains voluminous evidence regarding the ongoing threat to the life of the Petitioner. 23. On 5 March 2020, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking protection under diary no. 9134/2020. That Petition was not listed immediately and from March 2020, the Petitioner was compelled to sleep in her car parked outside Gate 8 of the Delhi High Court from March to September 2020, during the Covid pandemic. The car is stationary and broken down. The Petitioner during this time had no access to a toilet, or to food, or to water for drinking or washing clothes or bathing. The Petitioner during this time was targeted by men being used to follow her, throw stones at her, abuse her, call her “paagal”, hit her with lathis, poison and sedate her with chemical fumes when she was sleeping in her car. 24. Since September 2020, the Petitioner is renting some basic premises in Rajokri and is also being targeted there. She has been sedated and poisoned using chemicals/ substances added to her food and drink. She is being sedated and poisoned with chemical fumes. The entire property has been damaged to facilitate this poisoning. Her premises are being entered into in her absence. Large quantities of nitrous oxide gas, chloroform fumes, nerve agent fumes, toxic chemical fumes, noxious acrid corrosive fumes/ smoke, neurotoxins, hs2 gas, LPG gas, pesticides, organophosphates, and poisonous gas/ chemical fumes are being pumped into the Petitioner’s rented premises in Rajokri every day and night. These fumes are being used to render the Petitioner unconscious and are being used to poison her. 25. The Petitioner is being followed by several men on mobikes and cars whenever she leaves her premises. She is followed every day and all the time, even when she leaves the Delhi High Court or the Supreme Court. These persons following the Petitioner are being used to target her with toxic chemicals, obstruct, harass, and intimidate her. They are also being used in attempts to tamper with her food and drink in order to drug her and poison her. 26. Men being used to target the Petitioner are stationed outside her premises in Rajokri at all times, both during the day and through the night. 27. The Petitioner’s transport options from Rajokri are being interfered with and attempts are made to obstruct her from accessing transport. 28. The Petitioner’s Writ Petition before the Supreme Court was listed on 12 May 2023 and is now expected to be listed for hearing in July 2023 (Writ Petition Civil No. 548/ 2023). Since the Petitioner took steps to have this Supreme Court Writ Petition heard by removing the defects, the sedating and poisoning has intensified. The Petitioner’s life is in grave and immediate danger. 29. The fraud and forgeries committed in the present matter by the Delhi Police and by the lawyers for Google LLC have created an additional threat to the life of the Petitioner and the Petitioner is being targeted using the Delhi Police to prevent her from pursuing the present matter. The Petitioner now faces a threat to her life from the Policemen who have filed false status reports in this case and from the lawyers who have committed and facilitated the fraud in this case. 30. The Petitioner is also being targeted with toxic chemicals inside the Delhi High Court and in the Supreme Court. She has been targeted with toxic chemicals including by Policemen both outside and inside the court-room even during the hearings of the present case. 31. The Delhi Police has been weaponised against the Petitioner and it is clear that the targeting of the Petitioner is going on with the full connivance, participation and blessing of the Delhi Police. 32. The Petitioner is therefore also seeking protection orders from this Hon’ble Court also in the present case. 33. The Writ Petitioner is being sedated, poisoned, harassed, targeted, abused, threatened with violence, and being subjected to planned and deliberate sleep deprivation torture. 34. The Petitioner is facing a threat to her life on account of the ongoing attempted cover-up of her whistleblower complaints against General Electric Company in respect of its corrupt dealings in tenders for the Marhowra diesel locomotive factory Project of the Railway Ministry and further criminal offences committed as part of a planned obstruction of justice campaign to cover up the original corruption, fraud, bribery and forgery. 35. The Petitioner is also facing a threat to her life on account of non-redressal and an ongoing attempted cover-up of her complaint of sexual assault and sexual harassment against lawyer Soli J Sorabjee (now deceased) and her complaint of sexual harassment, planned sexual assault and retaliation against lawyer Raian N Karanjawala. FILED BY Seema Sapra Petitioner in Person 19 May 2023 New Delhi |
No comments:
Post a Comment