Please also read blog dedicated to this corporate fraud http://geimpersonationfraud.blogspot.in/
Former General Electric in-house counsel Seema Sapra filed a legal proceeding in the Delhi High Court (Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012) against General Electric Company and two Indian subsidiaries (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited).
The Delhi High Court issued notice in this matter to General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited on 7 March 2012. A copy of the Delhi High Court order dated 7 March 2012 can be viewed on the Delhi High Court website at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=49717&yr=2012
Instead of appearing before the Delhi High Court in this matter through properly authorized and competent person/s, General Electric Company lawyers and executives (including General Counsel Brackett Denniston, and GE in-house lawyers Alexander Dimitref, Bradford Berenson, and Jeffrey Eglash), caused this legal proceeding to remain hidden from General Electric Company and caused an Indian subsidiary employee K R Radhakrishnan to impersonate as the authorized signatory/ representative of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in these legal proceedings between 2012 and 2015 using fraudulent and forged authority documents on behalf of General Electric Company. With the help of this fraud, and using other dishonest, corrupt and illegal means, General Electric Company is attempting to cover up the corruption and FCPA complaints against it in connection with its bids for two Indian Railway tenders - the tenders for the proposed diesel locomotive factory in Marhowra and the tenders for the proposed electric locomotive factory in Madhepura.
Under Indian law, a lawyer representing a Party to a judicial proceeding must produce on the court record a duly executed 'vakalatnama', which is a specialized form of a Power of Attorney granted by the Party to the lawyer to represent it in Court. Under Indian law, a lawyer cannot appear for a Party in judicial proceedings without producing a duly executed vakalatnama in his favor by the client.
Further under Indian law, in case the party to the judicial proceeding is a corporate entity, then the authorized signatory/ representative of the corporate entity who executes the vakalatnama and other court pleadings on behalf of such corporate entity, must produce on the court record the documentation that establishes such person as the duly authorized signatory and representative of the corporate entity for such legal proceedings.
From July 2012 to March 2012, an Indian citizen named K R Radhakrishnan has unlawfully and fraudulently impersonated as the authorized signatory and representative of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012. K R Radhakrishnan is neither an officer nor employee of General Electric Company. He claims to be the Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited which is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company. K R Radhakrishnan has purported to execute vakalatnamas (Powers of Attorney) and court affidavits/ pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company which were filed in the Delhi High Court on behalf of General Electric Company.
Under the Board Resolution No.10855 of General Electric Company listing out the persons who are entitled to execute documents on behalf of General Electric Company (including Powers of Attorney and Court pleadings), K R Radhakrishnan was not entitled to act as authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court and was not entitled to execute any Powers of Attorney or Court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company. This Board Resolution of General Electric Company can be read at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxHBZ8fQxNoQeGU2OGozcGtYR28/view?usp=sharing
According to General Electric Company's Board Resolution No. 10855, only officers of the Company are authorized to execute documents on behalf of the General Electric Company. Further important documents like Powers of Attorney or Court Pleadings can only be executed by senior corporate officers of General Electric Company or by designated operational officers of the Company. Further such corporate or operational officers of General Electric Company have no power to further delegate document signing authority on others. An outsider to General Electric Company, like K R Radhakrishnan is not authorized to execute Powers of Attorney or Court Pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company.
So how did K R Radhakrishnan execute and file Vakalatnamas and Court Pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company in the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012 - in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others.
The Court record for Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 can be found at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/p/updated-court-documents-in-whistle.html
Note - I have censored my address in the form below but it has been provided in the TCR form submitted to the SEC
Read Complaint to the US Department of Justice, SEC and FBI against General Electric Company by Seema Sapra, lawyer - WP Civil 1280/2012 a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)
Also read details about corruption charges against General Electric Company in India at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/p/some-of-corruption-fraud-bribery_4275.html
The full case record can be found at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/2014/09/fwd-seema-sapra-general-electric_22.html
Former General Electric in-house counsel Seema Sapra filed a legal proceeding in the Delhi High Court (Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012) against General Electric Company and two Indian subsidiaries (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited).
The Delhi High Court issued notice in this matter to General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited on 7 March 2012. A copy of the Delhi High Court order dated 7 March 2012 can be viewed on the Delhi High Court website at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=49717&yr=2012
Instead of appearing before the Delhi High Court in this matter through properly authorized and competent person/s, General Electric Company lawyers and executives (including General Counsel Brackett Denniston, and GE in-house lawyers Alexander Dimitref, Bradford Berenson, and Jeffrey Eglash), caused this legal proceeding to remain hidden from General Electric Company and caused an Indian subsidiary employee K R Radhakrishnan to impersonate as the authorized signatory/ representative of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in these legal proceedings between 2012 and 2015 using fraudulent and forged authority documents on behalf of General Electric Company. With the help of this fraud, and using other dishonest, corrupt and illegal means, General Electric Company is attempting to cover up the corruption and FCPA complaints against it in connection with its bids for two Indian Railway tenders - the tenders for the proposed diesel locomotive factory in Marhowra and the tenders for the proposed electric locomotive factory in Madhepura.
Under Indian law, a lawyer representing a Party to a judicial proceeding must produce on the court record a duly executed 'vakalatnama', which is a specialized form of a Power of Attorney granted by the Party to the lawyer to represent it in Court. Under Indian law, a lawyer cannot appear for a Party in judicial proceedings without producing a duly executed vakalatnama in his favor by the client.
Further under Indian law, in case the party to the judicial proceeding is a corporate entity, then the authorized signatory/ representative of the corporate entity who executes the vakalatnama and other court pleadings on behalf of such corporate entity, must produce on the court record the documentation that establishes such person as the duly authorized signatory and representative of the corporate entity for such legal proceedings.
From July 2012 to March 2012, an Indian citizen named K R Radhakrishnan has unlawfully and fraudulently impersonated as the authorized signatory and representative of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012. K R Radhakrishnan is neither an officer nor employee of General Electric Company. He claims to be the Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited which is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company. K R Radhakrishnan has purported to execute vakalatnamas (Powers of Attorney) and court affidavits/ pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company which were filed in the Delhi High Court on behalf of General Electric Company.
Under the Board Resolution No.10855 of General Electric Company listing out the persons who are entitled to execute documents on behalf of General Electric Company (including Powers of Attorney and Court pleadings), K R Radhakrishnan was not entitled to act as authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court and was not entitled to execute any Powers of Attorney or Court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company. This Board Resolution of General Electric Company can be read at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxHBZ8fQxNoQeGU2OGozcGtYR28/view?usp=sharing
According to General Electric Company's Board Resolution No. 10855, only officers of the Company are authorized to execute documents on behalf of the General Electric Company. Further important documents like Powers of Attorney or Court Pleadings can only be executed by senior corporate officers of General Electric Company or by designated operational officers of the Company. Further such corporate or operational officers of General Electric Company have no power to further delegate document signing authority on others. An outsider to General Electric Company, like K R Radhakrishnan is not authorized to execute Powers of Attorney or Court Pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company.
So how did K R Radhakrishnan execute and file Vakalatnamas and Court Pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company in the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012 - in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others.
The Court record for Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 can be found at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/p/updated-court-documents-in-whistle.html
TCR Submitted Successfully - Reference Number: TCR1439646785831
Tell us about your complaint
Please select the option that best describes your complaint
Bribery of, or improper payments to, foreign officials (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violations)
Please select the specific category that best describes your complaint
Bribery of foreign officials
Provide additional details about your complaint:
Former General Electric in-house counsel Seema Sapra filed a legal proceeding in the Delhi High Court (Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012) against General Electric Company and two Indian subsidiaries (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited). The Delhi High Court issued notice in this matter to General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited on 7 March 2012. A copy of the Delhi High Court order dated 7 March 2012 can be viewed on the Delhi High Court website at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=49717&yr=2012 Instead of appearing before the Delhi High Court in this matter through properly authorized and competent person/s, General Electric Company lawyers and executives (including General Counsel Brackett Denniston, and GE in-house lawyers Alexander Dimitref, Bradford Berenson, and Jeffrey Eglash), caused this legal proceeding to remain hidden from General Electric Company and caused an Indian subsidiary employee K R Radhakrishnan to impersonate as the authorized signatory/ representative of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in these legal proceedings between 2012 and 2015 using fraudulent and forged authority documents on behalf of General Electric Company. With the help of this fraud, and using other dishonest, corrupt and illegal means, General Electric Company is attempting to cover up the corruption and FCPA complaints against it in connection with its bids for two Indian Railway tenders - the tenders for the proposed diesel locomotive factory in Marhowra and the tenders for the proposed electric locomotive factory in Madhepura. Under Indian law, a lawyer representing a Party to a judicial proceeding must produce on the court record a duly executed 'vakalatnama', which is a specialized form of a Power of Attorney granted by the Party to the lawyer to represent it in Court. Under Indian law, a lawyer cannot appear for a Party in judicial proceedings without producing a duly executed vakalatnama in his favor by the client. Further under Indian law, in case the party to the judicial proceeding is a corporate entity, then the authorized signatory/ representative of the corporate entity who executes the vakalatnama and other court pleadings on behalf of such corporate entity, must produce on the court record the documentation that establishes such person as the duly authorized signatory and representative of the corporate entity for such legal proceedings. From July 2012 to March 2012, an Indian citizen named K R Radhakrishnan has unlawfully and fraudulently impersonated as the authorized signatory and representative of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012. K R Radhakrishnan is neither an officer nor employee of General Electric Company. He claims to be the Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited which is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company. K R Radhakrishnan has purported to execute vakalatnamas (Powers of Attorney) and court affidavits/ pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company which were filed in the Delhi High Court on behalf of General Electric Company. Under the Board Resolution No.10855 of General Electric Company listing out the persons who are entitled to execute documents on behalf of General Electric Company (including Powers of Attorney and Court pleadings), K R Radhakrishnan was not entitled to act as authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court and was not entitled to execute any Powers of Attorney or Court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company. This Board Resolution of General Electric Company can be read at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxHBZ8fQxNoQeGU2OGozcGtYR28/view?usp=sharing The Court record for Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 can be found at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/p/updated-court-documents-in-whistle.html
When did you become aware of the alleged conduct? (mm/dd/yyyy)
08/10/2010
When did the alleged conduct begin? (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/01/2010
Is the alleged conduct ongoing?
Yes
Has the individual or firm acknowledged the alleged conduct?
No
What is the source of your information? You may select more than one
Conversations; Internal business documents; Publicly available information; SEC filings;
Have you taken any action regarding your complaint? You may select more than one
Complained to firm; Complained to other regulator; Complained to SEC; Complained to law enforcement; Legal action;
Who did you contact and what action did you take?
I have emailed the SEC, the US DOJ, the FBI. I sued General Electric Company in the Delhi High Court.
Who are you complaining about?
Are you complaining about an individual or a firm?
Firm
Select the title that best describes the individual or firm that you are complaining about:
Publicly held company
Firm Name:
General Electric Company
Street Address:
3135 Easton Turnpike
City:
Fairfield
State / Province:
Connecticut
Zip / Postal Code:
CT 06828-0001
Country:
USA
Telephone:
Are you or were you associated with the individual or firm when the alleged conduct occurred?
Yes
How are you or were you associated with the individual or firm you are complaining about?
I was working as in-house legal counsel in India helping GE Transportation (US) bid for Indian Rail contracts
Products involved
Select the type of product involved in your complaint:
Other
Please select the category that best describes your security product:
Other
For other, please provide more information:
Indian rail tenders
Enter the product name(s):
locomotives
About you
*Are you submitting this tip, complaint or referral pursuant to the SEC's whistleblower program?
Yes
*Are you submitting this tip, complaint or referral anonymously? Being able to contact you for further information or clarification may be helpful.
No
**Are you represented by an attorney in connection with your submission?
No
Submitter Information
Title:
Ms.
**First Name:
Seema Sapra
**Last Name:
Sapra
Street Address:
XX
Address (Continued):
XXXXXX Road
City:
New Delhi
State / Province:
Delhi
Zip / Postal Code:
1100011
Country:
India
Mobile Telephone:
00919582716748
Email Address:
seema.sapra@gmail.com
What is the best way to contact you?
Email
Select the profession that best represents you:
Attorney
Whistleblower Declarations
*1. Are you, or were you at the time you acquired the original information you are submitting to us, a member, officer, or employee of the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, any law enforcement organization, or any national securities exchange, registered securities association, registered clearing agency, or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board?
No
*2. Are you, or were you at the time you acquired the original information you are submitting to us, a member, officer, or employee of a foreign government, any political subdivision, department, agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government, or any other foreign financial regulatory authority as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(52) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78c(a)(52))?
No
*3. Did you acquire the information being submitted to us through the performance of an engagement required under the federal securities laws by an independent public accountant?
No
*4. Are you submitting this information pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the SEC or another agency or organization?
No
*5. Are you a spouse, parent, child, or sibling of a member or employee of the SEC, or do you reside in the same household as a member or employee of the SEC?
No
*7a. Are you submitting this information before you (or anyone representing you) received any investigative request, inquiry, or demand that relates to the subject matter of your submission from the SEC, Congress, or any other federal, state, or local authority, any self regulatory organization, or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board?
Yes
*8a. Are you currently a subject or target of a criminal investigation, or have you been convicted of a criminal violation, in connection with the information you are submitting to the SEC?
No
*9a. Did you acquire the information being provided to us from any person described in questions 1 through 8?
No
10. Identify with particularity any documents or other information in your submission that you believe could reasonably be expected to reveal your identity, and explain the basis for your belief that your identity would be revealed if the documents were disclosed to a third party.
I do not wish to keep my identity public. I have already made my identity as a whistleblower public.
*I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the information contained in this submission is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I fully understand that I may be subject to prosecution and ineligible for a whistleblower award if, in my submission of information, my other dealings with the SEC, or my dealings with another authority in connection with a related action, I knowingly and willfully make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or use any false writing or document knowing that the writing or document contains any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.
Agree
Read Complaint to the US Department of Justice, SEC and FBI against General Electric Company by Seema Sapra, lawyer - WP Civil 1280/2012 a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)
Also read details about corruption charges against General Electric Company in India at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/p/some-of-corruption-fraud-bribery_4275.html
The full case record can be found at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/2014/09/fwd-seema-sapra-general-electric_22.html
The ongoing whistleblower corruption against General Electric Company in India (Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 – in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others) is next listed before the Delhi High Court on 10 November 2014.
Pending court applications on this issue:
Complaint to the US Department of Justice, SEC and FBI against General Electric Company by Seema Sapra, lawyer - WP Civil 1280/2012 a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)
To the concerned officers of the Department of Justice, the SEC and the FBI of the United States of America,
US federal offences involving and amounting to fraud, obstruction of justice, perjury, corporate governance fraud and misrepresentation, filing of false affidavits and authority documents have all been committed in the name of General Electric Company and for and on its behalf in connection with Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012 (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others) that is awaiting hearing in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, India.
Under the relevant board resolution passed by the Board of General Electric Company, only designated corporate and operational officers of the Company can sign and execute powers of attorney and court
pleadings for and on behalf of General Electric Company. Additionally only the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board are authorised to further delegate such authority on behalf of the Company.
I am a former in-house counsel for GE in India and I filed the before-mentioned whistleblower legal proceeding in the Delhi High Court in February 2012 after lawyers for General Electric Company
covered up my complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribes, FCPA violations etc.
The Delhi High Court issued court notice to General Electric Company in these judicial proceedings on 7 March 2012.
False and fraudulent authority documents and affidavits have been filed in these proceedings in the name of General Electric Company.
These include a power of attorney allegedly executed by Mr Alexander Dimitrief authorising an Indian citizen (Mr K R Radhakrishnan) to sign powers of attorney, court pleadings including affidavits on behalf of
General Electric Company in these judicial proceedings as its authorised signatory.
These further include several affidavits and court applications filed on behalf of General Electric Company in these proceedings by K R Radhakrishnan and accompanied by affidavits signed by Radhakrishnan
holding himself out as the authorised signatory for General Electric Company.
Further Radhakrishnan has also signed and filed powers of attorney purporting to have been executed on behalf of General Electric Company in these legal proceedings which further purport to appoint Indian
attorneys to represent General Electric Company in these legal proceedings.
Finally another power of attorney signed and executed by Mr Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company authorising Radhakrishnan to sign court pleadings on behalf of General Electric
Company in these proceedings has also been filed in the Delhi High Court.
I point out that under the board resolution of General Electric Company, neither Mr Alexander Dimitrief, nor Mr Bradford Berenson, and not even Mr Brackett Dennistion, have the authority to authorise Mr K
R Radhakrishnan to sign either court pleadings or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company.
K R Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company and claims to be employed by an Indian subsidiary, GE India Industrial Private Limited.
I also point out that original copies of the powers of attorney executed by Mr Alexander Dimitrief and Mr Bradford Berenson have not been filed in court and the documents filed are photocopies and their authenticity is doubtful.
By this fraud on the Delhi High Court committed in the name of General Electric Company, Radhakrishnan has been used to file false, misleading and perjurious affidavits on behalf of General Electric Company in the Delhi High Court in the said legal proceedings. These affidavits have been filed with intent to cover up the complaints of corruption against General Electric Company.
The above facts disclose grave offences that amount to federal crimes and legal violations under United States law.
The US Department of Justice, the US SEC and the US FBI are also bound to investigate and prosecute these crimes and violations of US law.
General Electric Company is established under US law and its shares are publicly traded in the United States.
I request that the US Department of Justice, the US SEC and the US FBI investigate and prosecute these crimes and violations of US law.
My life remains in danger as a result of my whistle-blowing.
Seema Sapra
Pending court applications on this issue:
Complaint to the US Department of Justice, SEC and FBI against General Electric Company by Seema Sapra, lawyer - WP Civil 1280/2012 a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)
To the concerned officers of the Department of Justice, the SEC and the FBI of the United States of America,
US federal offences involving and amounting to fraud, obstruction of justice, perjury, corporate governance fraud and misrepresentation, filing of false affidavits and authority documents have all been committed in the name of General Electric Company and for and on its behalf in connection with Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012 (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others) that is awaiting hearing in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, India.
Under the relevant board resolution passed by the Board of General Electric Company, only designated corporate and operational officers of the Company can sign and execute powers of attorney and court
pleadings for and on behalf of General Electric Company. Additionally only the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board are authorised to further delegate such authority on behalf of the Company.
I am a former in-house counsel for GE in India and I filed the before-mentioned whistleblower legal proceeding in the Delhi High Court in February 2012 after lawyers for General Electric Company
covered up my complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribes, FCPA violations etc.
The Delhi High Court issued court notice to General Electric Company in these judicial proceedings on 7 March 2012.
False and fraudulent authority documents and affidavits have been filed in these proceedings in the name of General Electric Company.
These include a power of attorney allegedly executed by Mr Alexander Dimitrief authorising an Indian citizen (Mr K R Radhakrishnan) to sign powers of attorney, court pleadings including affidavits on behalf of
General Electric Company in these judicial proceedings as its authorised signatory.
These further include several affidavits and court applications filed on behalf of General Electric Company in these proceedings by K R Radhakrishnan and accompanied by affidavits signed by Radhakrishnan
holding himself out as the authorised signatory for General Electric Company.
Further Radhakrishnan has also signed and filed powers of attorney purporting to have been executed on behalf of General Electric Company in these legal proceedings which further purport to appoint Indian
attorneys to represent General Electric Company in these legal proceedings.
Finally another power of attorney signed and executed by Mr Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company authorising Radhakrishnan to sign court pleadings on behalf of General Electric
Company in these proceedings has also been filed in the Delhi High Court.
I point out that under the board resolution of General Electric Company, neither Mr Alexander Dimitrief, nor Mr Bradford Berenson, and not even Mr Brackett Dennistion, have the authority to authorise Mr K
R Radhakrishnan to sign either court pleadings or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company.
K R Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company and claims to be employed by an Indian subsidiary, GE India Industrial Private Limited.
I also point out that original copies of the powers of attorney executed by Mr Alexander Dimitrief and Mr Bradford Berenson have not been filed in court and the documents filed are photocopies and their authenticity is doubtful.
By this fraud on the Delhi High Court committed in the name of General Electric Company, Radhakrishnan has been used to file false, misleading and perjurious affidavits on behalf of General Electric Company in the Delhi High Court in the said legal proceedings. These affidavits have been filed with intent to cover up the complaints of corruption against General Electric Company.
The above facts disclose grave offences that amount to federal crimes and legal violations under United States law.
The US Department of Justice, the US SEC and the US FBI are also bound to investigate and prosecute these crimes and violations of US law.
General Electric Company is established under US law and its shares are publicly traded in the United States.
I request that the US Department of Justice, the US SEC and the US FBI investigate and prosecute these crimes and violations of US law.
My life remains in danger as a result of my whistle-blowing.
Seema Sapra
In the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra …Petitioner
versus
General Electric Company and Others ….Respondents
Affidavit of petitioner pointing out that the vakalatnamas and authority documents filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 for representation of Respondents 1, 6 and 7 (General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited) are unauthorised, illegal, invalid and prima facie forged and unauthentic documents
I, Seema Sapra, daughter of Late Shri A. R. Sapra, aged 41 years, previously resident of G 4, first floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi 110014 and rendered homeless on 30 May 2012 (because of and as a result of the whistleblower complaints of corruption, forgery, bribery, fraud and illegal activities made against General Electric, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Planning Commission, Railway Ministry and Ministry of Finance and as a result of the whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and because of my complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Soli J Sorabjee and Mr Raian Karanjawala) in contempt of this Hon’ble Court’s order dated May 25, 2012 and presently homeless and sleeping in my car since 27 February 2013 (except for a period of approximately 15 days in June 2013) do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
I am the Petitioner in the present Petition and am well aware of the facts of the case and am competent to file the present affidavit. This affidavit is being filed to raise the issue of the unauthorised and fraudulent representation of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited, and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited by AZB & Partners and by one Mr K R Radhakrishnan before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 – in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others.
This affidavit is being filed to supplement CM 10493/ 2013 which was listed before this court on 22 July 2013 and was adjourned to 22 August 2013 without being taken up for hearing. The contents of CM 10493/ 2013 are not repeated herein but may be read along with this affidavit.
This matter was scheduled for hearing on 18 July 2013. On 17 July 2013, the petitioner inspected the court file and found out that on 16 July 2013, AZB had filed three new vakalatnamas in this matter for respondents 1, 6 and 7. The petitioner sent three emails and at least two text messages to lawyers from AZB including to Mr Nanju Ganpathy requesting that a copy of the documents filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 under diary no. 101173 be provided to the petitioner. The petitioner also requested AZB for a copy of these documents during the court hearings on 18 July and 22 July 2013.
Since AZB & Partners and General Electric chose to ignore the petitioner’s request for copies of the latest (third) version of vakalatnamas and authority documents filed by them in the captioned matter in the Delhi High Court on 16 July 2013, the petitioner obtained certified copies from the court. The original certified copies of the vakalatnamas and authority documents placed on record by AZB on 16 July 2013 are attached hereto as Annexure P-1.
Also attached hereto as Annexure P-2 is a copy of a letter dated January 4, 2011 signed by Mr Bradford Berenson when he was with Sidley Austin LLP. This letter provides a specimen signature for Mr Bradford Berenson.
It is pointed out that the signatures allegedly affixed by Mr Bradford Berenson to the vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 and Power of Attorney dated April 29, 2013 produced by AZB do not match the signature of Mr Bradford Berenson in the attached letter dated January 4, 2011.
The signatures of Barbara Mondulick (notary public) on the vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 and Power of Attorney dated April 29, 2013 produced by AZB do not match. These also do not match the signature of Barbara Mondulick on the Power of Attorney dated 4 May 2012 and on the signed statement of Mr Brackett Denniston dated 17 December 2012 placed on the record earlier by AZB.
The vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 placed on record by AZB has an uncoloured embossed seal on it next to Ms Barbara Mondulick’s alleged signature. Since this seal is uncoloured, it is not visible in the certified copy annexed hereto as Annexure P-1, though it is visible in the original document which the petitioner has inspected. However, it is pointed out that no such embossed seal of Ms Barbara Mondulick is visible on the copies of the power of attorneys dated 4 May 2012 and 29 April 2013 or on the signed statement of Mr Brackett Denniston dated 17 December 2012 placed on record by AZB and all of which have allegedly been notarised by Ms Barbara Mondulick.
The copies of the power of attorney dated 4 May 2012 and Mr Brackett Denniston’s statement dated 17 December 2012 both allegedly notarised by Ms Barbara Mondulick bear a rubber stamp seal of Ms Barbara Mondulick. On the other hand the power of attorney dated 29 April 2013 and the vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson do not bear any such rubber stamp seal of Ms Barbara Mondulick.
The three allegedly apostilled documents that AZB relies upon (the POA dated 4 May 2012, the POA dated 29 April 2013, and the vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson) have not been placed on record in original. Instead photocopies have been filed. Unless and until the original apostilled documents are placed on record, it is impossible to ascertain if these documents and apostilles are genuine. The reason being that the apostille pages are generic documents merely certifying the signature of Barbara Mondulick to a “public document” without describing/ identifying the accompanying public document or its date. Copies of these apostille pages could have been taken from other unconnected documents signed by Ms Barbara Mondulick and attached to the copies of the alleged POA dated 4 May 2012, the alleged POA dated 29 April 2013, and the alleged vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson. Only original apostilled documents can be relied upon and these have not been produced on the record.
Also attached hereto as Annexure P-3 is a copy of the Notary Manual for the State of Connecticut . The acknowledgement declaration allegedly printed by Barbara Mondulick on the vakalatnama dated 9 May 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson is not in accordance with the rules prescribed by the State of Connecticut in this notary manual.
Ms Barbara Mondulick appears to have ties to General Electric Company and is therefore an "insider" to the company.
The new alleged power of attorney dated 29 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson does not contain the safeguard provisions that were present in the earlier power of attorney dated 4 May 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief.
A comparison of the POA dated 4 May 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and the POA dated 29 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson shows the following:
POA dated 4 May 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief
|
POA dated 29 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson
|
Records that Seema Sapra has instituted certain proceedings in the Delhi High Court against General Electric Company, (i.e., the present writ petition)
|
Does not mention any proceedings instituted by Seema Sapra against General Electric Company
|
Provides that: “THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY is strictly limited to act as a signatory on behalf of the Grantor, in respect of documents in relation to the Proceedings, which are specifically pre-approved in writing by the Grantor in advance. This Power of Attorney does not empower the Attorney to exercise any discretion on behalf of the Grantor, or to do any other act other than as specified herein”.
|
Does not contain such a provision.
|
Prima facie the new documents filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 appear to be forged/ inauthentic documents besides being unauthorised and invalid for the reasons already set out in CM 10493/ 2013 filed in W.P. (Civil) 1280/ 2012. This application was listed before court on 22 July 2013 and was for undisclosed and unrecorded reasons adjourned unheard by Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Deepa Sharma to 22 August 2013.
K R Radhakrishnan cannot therefore act for and represent General Electric Company, or GE India industrial Private Limited or GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited in these writ proceedings and AZB & Partners cannot appear for these respondents as all the three sets of alleged vakalatnamas (dated 7 December 2012, 17 December 2012, and 16 July 2013) in their favor signed by Bradford Berenson/ K R Radhakrishnan are unauthorised and invalid. The authority documents attached to the vakalatnamas dated 16 July 2013 filed by AZB are also unauthorised, invalid and illegal, and prima facie appear to be forged and inauthentic documents.
It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a legal entity like 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 duly executed by such party authorising the lawyer to represent it.
The Court has no discretion to allow a company to be represented in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and sufficient authority documents and has failed to establish his authority to represent the company. The Court has no discretion to permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and valid vakalatnama.
This unauthorised and fraudulent representation of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited by K R Radhakrishnan and by AZB & Partners/ Mr Nanju Ganapathy in these whistleblower writ proceedings accusing General Electric of corruption, fraud, forgery and of obstruction of justice, is a monumental fraud being committed on the Delhi High Court, on the Government of India, on General Electric Company, and on the petitioner by General Electric Company's in-house lawyers acting in collusion with AZB & Partners and with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this 27th day of July 2013, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
In the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
C.M. Appl. No. of 2013
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra …Petitioner
Versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
An application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code SEEKING DIRECTIONS from the court TO IMMEDIATELY STOP AZB & PARTNERS AND MR NANJU GANPATHY FROM APPEARING FOR RESPONDENTS 1, 6 & 7 IN THIS WRIT PETITION AND FOR ISSUE OF FRESH NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS 1, 6 & 7
The Petitioner above named
Most Respectfully Showeth:
This application is being filed seeking directions in connection with the unauthorised and fraudulent representation of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited, and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (Respondents 1, 6 & 7 respectively) by AZB & Partners before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 – in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others.
General Electric Company, an American company is respondent 1 in this petition and was issued notice by the Delhi High Court on 7 March 2012.
Mr Nanju Ganpathy and AZB & Partners (AZB) appeared for General Electric Company in this matter on 9 May 2012. AZB continued to appear for General Electric Company on 14, 16, 25, 29 and 30 May 2012; on 3,13, and 19 July 2012; on 12 October 2012; on 8, 19, 26 and 30 November 2012; and on 5 December 2012.
The petitioner inspected the court record and discovered that AZB/ Nanju Ganpathy (along with Rajiv Nayar, Sr Advocate) were appearing for General Electric Company without having filed any vakalatnama. The petitioner filed CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012) objecting to AZB representing General Electric Company without filing a vakalatnama. AZB filed a vakalatnama on 7 December 2012.
On 10 December, 2012, CM 19370/ 2012 was listed before court and the petitioner objected in court to AZB’s appearance for General Electric Company. On this date, Nanju Ganpathy lied to the court and stated that a vakalatnama had been filed much earlier but was not on record. The electronic case history maintained by the court registry establishes that Mr Nanju Ganpathy misled the court as there is no record of AZB having filed a vakalatnama before 7 December 2012.
The vakalatnama filed by AZB on 7 December 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] which holds 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 failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney will render the vakalatnama defective.
The petitioner filed CM 19683/2012 on 14 December 2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7 December 2013 was invalid and did not annex the required authority documents. AZB filed another vakalatnama for General Electric Company on 17 December 2012. This vakalatnama is signed by one Mr K R Radhakrishnan who is company secretary of an Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company. This Indian subsidiary (GE India Industrial Private Limited) is separately impleaded as respondent 6.
K R Radhakrishnan claims to be authorised signatory for General Electric Company under a Power of Attorney (POA) dated 4 May 2012 issued in his favour by Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company.
K R Radhakrishnan has filed an affidavit in the writ petition through AZB on 7 January 2013. This affidavit produces an extract from the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised on November 6, 2009) containing a Board Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the Board Resolution) which describes and limits the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company.
This affidavit also produces the alleged POA dated 4 May 2012 and a statement dated 17 December 2012 made and signed by Mr Brackett Denniston, General Counsel and Secretary of General Electric Company. (This affidavit falsely and perjuriously states in paragraph 2 that this signed statement dated 17 December 2012 issued by Mr Brackett Denniston is a board resolution issued by General Electric Company.)
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. On May 4, 2012, the date on which the POA was allegedly executed, Alexander Dimitrief was General Counsel of GE Energy. The writ proceedings pertain to GE Transportation and not to GE Energy. (Both are separate business units/ divisions of General Electric Company).
The Board Resolution of General Electric Company describes and limits the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company. The relevant clause is Paragraph A which confers authority to sign powers of attorney and court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company upon certain individuals. Under Paragraph A of the Board Resolution, the following persons are “Authorized Persons” who can sign powers of attorney and court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company:
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
Any Vice President who is a corporate staff officer of the Company
These “Authorized Persons” can “execute” on behalf of General Electric Company, the instruments of the type described in Paragraph A of the Board Resolution. These instruments described in Paragraph A are the following:
“Any contract, lease, licence, assignment, bond or other obligation, conveyance, power of attorney, guarantee, proxy, court pleading, release, tax return and related documents, or other instruments”.
The second part of Paragraph A of the Board Resolution also states that the following company employees may “sign” any instrument of the type described in Paragraph A which relates to the component or function or Division or Department to which such company employee is assigned:
An Operational Officer of the Company
A Manager of the Company
A formally designated Acting Manager of the Company
Neither the “Authorized Persons” nor any employee of the Company can delegate to “others” the authority to execute/ sign on behalf of General Electric Company, instruments of the type described in Paragraph A of the Board Resolution.
Only the Chairman of the Board or a Vice Chairman of the Board is authorized under Paragraph B of the Board Resolution to delegate to “others”, the authority to execute contracts and other instruments on behalf of the Company.
The last sentence of Paragraph A, and Paragraphs C, D, E, and F provide limited authority to identified individuals to delegate to others the authority to sign on behalf of General Electric Company certain limited types of contracts and instruments. These provisions are not relevant for the POA dated May 4, 2012 as the POA does not fall within the description of the types of instruments covered by these provisions. The POA dated 4 May 2012 is not covered by the last sentence of Paragraph A, or by Paragraphs C, D, E, F and G of the Board Resolution.
The provisions of the Board Resolution applicable to the POA dated 4 May 2012 are Paragraph A (excluding its last sentence) and Paragraph B.
The POA dated 4 May 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief purportedly does the following:
It purports to delegate to K R Radhakrishnan the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company.
It purports to delegate to K R Radhakrishnan the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company.
It purports to delegate to K R Radhakrishnan the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name of and on behalf of General Electric Company.
It purports to authorize K R Radhakrishnan to accept service of summons and notices from a Court on behalf of General Electric Company.
Under the original document (the Board Resolution) conferring authority on him, Alexander Dimitrief did not/ does not have the authority to delegate to any person the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name and on behalf of General Electric Company.
Therefore Alexander Dimitrief could not have delegated/ can not delegate to K R Radhakrishnan (or to any other person) the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name and on behalf of General Electric Company.
The POA dated May 4, 2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief on behalf of General Electric Company is in excess of the authority vested in Alexander Dimitrief under the Board Resolution and is therefore illegal, unauthorised and invalid and it can confer no authority on K R Radhakrishnan.
This analysis is also supported by other provisions of the Board Resolution. The last recital on page one of the Board Resolution stipulates that it will 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 power 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”.
Paragraph H of the Board Resolution also confirms that any delegation of authority must be expressly authorized by the Board Resolution and that Authority can be delegated only pursuant to the last sentence of Paragraph (A), or pursuant to Paragraphs (B), (C), (D), (E) or (F) of the board resolution. None of these provisions authorize Alexander Dimitrief to delegate to any person, the authority to execute powers of attorneys and/ or court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company.
The petitioner has raised an objection that Alexander Dimitrief was not an Authorized Person in terms of Paragraph A of the Board Resolution on 4 May 2012, and neither was he the Operational Officer of the Company in charge of litigation as he had demitted the office of Vice President, Litigation & Legal Policy of General Electric Company on November 1, 2011.
Mr Brackett Denniston’s signed statement dated 17 December 2012 annexed to the affidavit of K R Radhakrishnan claims that until Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as Mr Alexander Dimitrief’s replacement, the latter “continued to be authorized to issue powers of attorney and other instruments on behalf of General Electric Company in relation to matters of litigation and legal policy in terms of the Resolution”. No evidence or document has been produced by Mr Brackett Denniston to support this contention. Given that the Board Resolution of General Electric Company limits the authority of individuals to execute instruments on behalf of the company, this authority cannot be expanded suo moto by Mr Brackett Denniston. Mr Alexander Dimitrief was admittedly no longer the Operational Officer looking after litigation for General Electric Company on 4 May 2012 and as such he had no authority to execute the POA dated 4 May 2012.
Even assuming without admitting, that Alexander Dimitrief was on 4 May 2012, authorized (as an Operational Officer of the Company looking after litigation & legal policy) under Paragraph A of the Board Resolution to “sign” powers of attorney and/ or court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company in relation to litigation & legal policy; he certainly had no authority to further delegate his authority to others. Alexander Dimitrief could not have delegated the authority to execute/ sign powers of attorney and court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company to K R Radhakrishnan. The POA dated 4 May 2012, under which K R Radhakrishnan claims to be the authorized signatory and attorney of General Electric Company is unauthorized, illegal and invalid and can confer no such authority upon K R Radhakrishnan.
K R Radhakrishnan is therefore not an authorised signatory of General Electric Company and the vakalatnama executed by him appointing AZB to represent the Company is invalid. Similarly, the several affidavits/ applications executed and filed by K R Radhakrishnan through AZB on behalf of General Electric Company in this matter are unauthorised, false and perjurious.
Brackett Denniston, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of General Electric Company has in his signed statement dated 17 December 2012 annexed to the affidavit dated 7 January 2013, purported to ratify the execution of the Power of Attorney dated 4 May 2012 on behalf of General Electric Company and in favor of K R Radhakrishnan.
Brackett Denniston cannot ratify the execution of this POA as he himself could not have executed this POA. Just like Alexander Dimitrief, Brackett Denniston being an “Authorized Person” in terms of Paragraph A of the Board Resolution is only authorized to himself execute on behalf of General Electric Company the instruments of the type described in Paragraph A. The Board Resolution does not authorize Brackett Denniston to further delegate this authority to other persons. Brackett Denniston himself did not/ does not have the authority to execute a POA delegating to K R Radhakrishnan the authority to execute powers of attorney and court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company. It follows that Brackett Denniston does not have the authority to ratify an action on behalf of General Electric Company which action he himself is not authorized to undertake.
The only persons who are authorized under the Board Resolution to delegate to other persons the authority to execute powers of attorney and court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company are the Chairman and/ or the Vice Chairman of the Board (by virtue of Paragraph B of the Board Resolution).
Accordingly, only the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of General Electric Company can ratify the POA dated 4 May 2012. It is also pointed out that mere ratification of the POA dated 4 May 2012 will not suffice. In addition, the Chairman and/ or Vice Chairman of the Board would have to separately verify and ratify each and every affidavit filed in this writ petition by K R Radhakrishnan on behalf of General Electric Company. It is pointed out that all these affidavits are not only unauthorized but are substantively false and the deponent of these affidavits (K R Radhakrishnan) is liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offence of perjury.
This unauthorized and fraudulent representation of General Electric Company by K R Radhakrishnan and by AZB is an elaborate fraud being perpetrated on the Delhi High Court, on General Electric Company, on the Government of India and on the petitioner. This fraud is being perpetrated by senior legal officers of General Electric Company (including Brackett Denniston, Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson and Jeffrey Eglash) acting in collusion with F Joseph Warin and John Chesley from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and with Zia Mody and Nanju Ganpathy of AZB & Partners.
The complaints that are the subject matter of this petition are against General Electric Company and several of its officers/ executives and in-house lawyers. The alleged in-house investigation into the petitioner’s complaints was carried out by General Electric Company through an in-house lawyer, Mr Jeffrey Eglash under the direct supervision of Brackett Denniston and Alexander Dimitrief. The letter dated 3 February 2011 sent to the Petitioner by General Electric Company misrepresenting facts and covering up the complaints of obstruction of justice, corruption, fraud and forgery was signed by Alexander Dimitrief. Brackett Denniston and Alexander Dimitrief are both personally implicated in the petitioner’s complaints as are other very high-level officers/ executive/ lawyers / former employees of General Electric Company including Jeffrey Immelt, John Rice, John Flannery, Lorenzo Simonelli, Tara Plimpton, Mona Dange, Deepak Adlakha, Puneet Mahajan, Pratyush Kumar, Ashfaq Nainar, Scott Bayman, and Ruby Anand.
It is pointed out that the POA dated 4 May 2012, omits to mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the nature/ character/ subject matter of the writ petition.
The fact of this fraud being committed on the Delhi High Court is further confirmed by a strange provision in the POA dated 4 May 2012. Clause 6 of this POA provides that the powers conferred by the POA “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”.
This clause therefore raises the likelihood that the “unauthorized” instructions being sent to K R Radhakrishnan and/ or to AZB are not being sent directly from General Electric Company but via other intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple layers of separation between General Electric Company (and its legal officers) and these court proceedings are being maintained.
In April 2012, when the petitioner attempted to serve the court notice and the writ petition on General Electric Company at its corporate head-office in Fairfield (Connecticut) in the United States, the courier was diverted by Jeffrey Eglash (a lawyer in General Electric Company) to the New York office of the law firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. The cover up of the petitioner’s complaints is being facilitated by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
It appears that no official record of these writ proceedings is available within the internal records of General Electric Company. It appears as if this writ petition has not been officially brought to the notice of senior management of General Electric Company including senior legal officers like Mr Brackett Denniston, Mr Alexander Dimitrief, and Mr Bradford Berenson. This is to prevent any accountability and responsibility on their part for the false affidavits that are being filed in this matter purporting to be on behalf of General Electric Company.
AZB has continued to appear for General Electric Company in court in this matter without authority on subsequent dates including on 12, 19, 20 and 21 December 2012; on 7, 14, 16, 23, and 24 January 2013; on 4, 15 and 27 February 2013; on 18 March 2013; on 1, 11, 12, 18, 22 and 29 April, 2013; on 1, 3, 16, 22 and 31 May 2013.
Though the petitioner has raised this issue before the court on several dates and in subsequent applications, the Bench has so far failed to even take up this issue for hearing, arguments and decision.
The issue is very simple. The POA dated May 4, 2012 through which K R Radhakrishnan and AZB & Partners claim to represent General Electric Company in these writ proceedings is illegal and invalid because such POA could not have been executed by Alexander Dimitrief under the Board Resolution through which Alexander Dimitrief claims his authority.
K R Radhakrishnan cannot therefore act for and represent General Electric Company in these writ proceedings and AZB & Partners cannot appear for General Electric Company as the vakalatnama in their favor signed by K R Radhakrishnan is invalid.
This fraud on the Delhi High Court is a serious matter. General Electric Company is accused of corrupt and illegal activities in this writ petition in connection with high-value Railway Ministry tenders for diesel and electric locomotive factories. The Delhi High Court issued notice to General Electric Company and directed it to file its reply. Instead of complying with the court order, senior legal management of General Electric devised an elaborate scheme to defraud the court and to avoid filing appropriate affidavits and replies. Through this fraudulent scheme effectuated with the help of external lawyers from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and from AZB & Partners, senior legal management of General Electric Company has caused an unauthorised person (K R Radahakrishnan) to file unauthorised, false and evasive affidavits before the court misrepresenting these as affidavits being filed on behalf of General Electric Company.
It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a legal entity like 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 record a vakalatnama duly executed by such party authorising the lawyer to represent it.
The Court has no discretion to allow a company to be represented in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and sufficient authority documents and has failed to establish his authority to represent the company. The Court has no discretion to permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and valid vakalatnama.
This fraud also constitutes a major breach of corporate governance principles and laws by the senior management of General Electric Company and is an issue for US regulators and the US Department of Justice to investigate. The petitioner has brought this matter to the attention of the United States Embassy in New Delhi , the US SEC and the United States Department of Justice.
This application also raises the issue of the unauthorised and fraudulent representation of GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited by AZB & Partners before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 – in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others.
K R Radhakrishnan and Nanju Ganpathy and AZB & Partners are also fraudulently claiming to represent the two Indian subsidiaries of General Electric Company who are respondents 5 and 6 in this writ petition without being duly authorised and without legal and valid authority documents.
Respondent 6 is GE India Industrial Private Limited (hereafter referred to as GE India) while Respondent 7 is GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (GE Global Sourcing India).
Mr Nanju Ganpathy and AZB & Partners (AZB) appeared for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India in this matter on 9 May 2012. AZB continued to appear for GE India on 14, 16, 25, 29 and 30 May 2012; on 3, 13, and 19 July 2012; and on 12 October 2012.
On 4 July 2012, AZB filed an alleged counter affidavit/ reply to the writ petition purporting to be the response of all three General Electric respondents i.e., General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (respondents 1, 6 and 7 respectively).
This document dated filed on 4 July 2012, was allegedly signed by one K R Radhakrishnan, and merely states that K R Radhakrishnan was the authorized signatory of respondents 1, 6 and 7. The document contains a verification clause which was signed but not affirmed before an oath commissioner. A two page affidavit of K R Radhakrishnan attached to this document merely states that K R Radhakrishnan is the authorised signatory of respondents 1, 6 and 7 in the matter “pursuant to the powers of attorney executed in my favour in this regard”. Neither these alleged powers of attorney nor any other authority documents were annexed to this document which otherwise contained thirteen annexures with the document itself running to 206 pages.
On 12 October, 2012, the petitioner pointed out to the court that no authority documents had been placed on record to establish that K R Radhakrishnan was authorized to represent respondents 1, 6 and 7 and as a result the following direction was issued by the court in its order dated 12 October 2012:
“Ms Seema Sapra, petitioner in person, opposes the condonation of delay of one day on the ground that the counter affidavit by itself ought not to be on record as the person who has sworn the affidavit, i.e., Mr.K.R. Radhakrishnan is not authorized to file the counter affidavit, on behalf of respondent no. 1. Even while, Ms Sapra says that this objection is confined to respondent no. 1 only, she adds that no documents had been filed on record to show that there is authority vested in Mr.K.R. Radhakrishnan, on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7 as well.
Mr Ganpathy, who appears for respondent nos. 1, 6 and 7, says that he will place the requisite documents on record.
Let the same be done within two weeks.”
On 19 October, 2012, AZB filed three documents which were not supported by affidavit. These three documents were a power of attorney dated 4 May 2012 alleged executed by Alexander Dimitrief on behalf of General Electric Company and alleged copies of two alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 passed by respondents 6 and 7 (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited). The index (table of contents) accompanying these documents and signed by a lawyer from AZB & Partners wrongly described the contents as “Power of Attorney on behalf of Respondents 1, 6 & 7”. No powers of attorney were produced for respondents 6 and 7. Instead the documents placed on record were alleged copies of alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 of respondents 6 and 7 which merely authorised a Director of these companies to execute powers of attorney in favour of K R Radhakrishnan. The copies of the two alleged board resolutions placed on record were also not authenticated and certified as true copies in accordance with law and practice.
Mr Nanju Ganpathy and AZB & Partners (AZB) continued to appear for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India in this matter on 8, 19, 26 and 30 November 2012; and on 5 December 2012.
The petitioner inspected the court record and discovered that AZB/ Nanju Ganpathy (along with Rajiv Nayar, Sr Advocate) were appearing for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India without having filed any vakalatnamas. The petitioner filed CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012) objecting to AZB representing GE India and GE Global Sourcing India without filing vakalatnamas. AZB filed three separate vakalatnamas on 7 December 2012, two of which purported to appoint AZB to represent GE India and GE Global Sourcing India.
On 10 December 2012, CM 19370/ 2012 was listed before court and the petitioner objected in court to AZB’s appearance for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India. On this date, Nanju Ganpathy lied to the court and stated that vakalatnamas had been filed much earlier but were not on record. The electronic case history maintained by the court registry establishes that Mr Nanju Ganpathy misled the court as there is no record of AZB having filed vakalatnama(s) before 7 December 2012.
The vakalatnamas filed by AZB on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India on 7 December 2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and were invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75] which holds 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 failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney will render the vakalatnama defective.
The petitioner filed CM 19683/2012 on 14 December 2012 pointing out that the vakalatnamas dated 7 December 2013 were invalid and did not annex the required authority documents.
AZB then filed two other affidavits on 17 December 2012 signed and verified by K R Radhakrishnan.
The first affidavit filed by K R Radhakrishnan on 17 December 2012 is an alleged reply to CM 18642/ 2012 (it begins at page 3874 of the court record). This affidavit contains the following statement at page 3878 of the court record:
“… the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 issued Board Resolutions authorizing Mr K R Radhakrishnan to take all necessary steps to prosecute and/ or defend the said two entities. It would further be necessary to mention that no Power of Attorney as envisaged in each of the said Board Resolutions was issued as the Board Resolution(s) issued clearly empowered and authorized Mr K R Radhakrishnan to do all that was necessary to effectively prosecute and/ or defend actions to be initiated by these entities and/ or initiated against these entities.”
The above statement is false in so far as it states that the alleged Board Resolutions dated 7 May 2012 (for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India) themselves empowered and authorised K R Radhakrishnan to defend this writ petition on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India.
On the contrary, the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 allegedly issued by GE India and GE Global Sourcing India clearly contemplated the execution of powers of attorney in favour of K R Radhakrishnan. These alleged board resolution stated: “RESOLVED FURTHER THAT a Power of Attorney be executed for this purpose in favour of K R Radhakrishnan and any one Director of the Company be and is hereby authorised to sign the same for and on behalf of the company”. In his affidavit dated 17 December 2012, at page 3878 of the court record, K R Radhakrishnan clearly admits that the powers of attorney contemplated by the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 were never issued/ executed in his favour. The legal effect of this failure/ omission to execute powers of attorney on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India in favour of K R Radhakrishnan is that he was never appointed as the “attorney” for these companies. He therefore at no time had the authority to sign vakalatnamas and affidavits on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India in favour of AZB for the purposes of this writ petition.
There is another crucial defect in the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 under which K R Radhakrishnan first claimed the authority to represent GE India and GE Global Sourcing India. These board resolutions purport to authorize the execution of a power of attorney in favour of K R Radhakrishnan to act for these companies in connection with “Proceedings” which are defined in the board resolutions as follows:
“initiate proceedings before the Bar Council of Delhi (under the provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules) or Bar Council of India or any Civil Courts, Criminal Courts, High Courts, Supreme Court of India or before any other Quasi-Judicial authority, Tribunal, Government Authority or Local authority, against Ms. Seema Sapra, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi (“Proceedings”)”
The “Proceedings” covered by these Board Resolutions dated 7 May 2012 therefore do not include this writ petition filed by the Petitioner in February 2012 against GE India and GE Global Sourcing India. The subject matter of the Board Resolutions dated 7 May 2012 was limited to proceedings that these companies might initiate against the Petitioner and did not include proceedings already initiated against these companies by the Petitioner.
The second affidavit filed by AZB and signed and verified by K R Radhakrishnan on 17 December 2012.is wrongly labelled as the “Confirmatory Affidavit on behalf of Respondents 1, 6 and 7”. This affidavit states that K R Radhakrishnan is the company secretary of respondent 6, i.e. GE India.
This affidavit signed and verified by K R Radhakrishnan contains the following misrepresentations:
It misrepresents that the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 authorised K R Radhakrishnan to act for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India for the purposes of the present writ petition and misrepresents that K R Radhakrishnan was the duly constituted attorney for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India when he signed and verified and caused affidavits to be filed on behalf of these companies in this writ petition.
It misrepresents that in July 2012, K R Radhakrishnan signed vakalatnamas for respondents 1, 6 and 7 in favor of AZB for the purposes of this writ petition. The single vakalatnama in favor of AZB that K R Radhakrishnan claims to have signed on or about 2 July 2012 appears to be the vakalatnama that AZB used to file the fraudulent OMP 647/ 2012 on behalf of GE India and against the Petitioner as respondent.
This affidavit then goes on to produce copies of new board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 allegedly passed by GE India and GE Global Sourcing India under which K R Radhakrishnan now claims to be the duly constituted attorney for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India instead of under the earlier board resolutions dated 7 May 2012. These alleged new board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 are very strange documents that attempt to masquerade as powers of attorney and in fact misrepresent themselves as powers of attorney.
These alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 record that the consent of the Boards of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India is accorded to authorise and appoint K R Radhakrishnan (the Company Secretary of GE India) as the attorney of these companies interalia to defend proceedings initiated against these companies by the Petitioner in the Delhi High Court. These board resolutions do not contain the usual provision authorising the execution of the power of attorney instrument.
Instead in their final paragraph, these board resolutions claim to be the power of attorney instruments themselves and state: “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 fraud being perpetrated on the court is extremely evident. In the first instance, the source of Radhakrishnan’s authority to represent GE India and GE Global Sourcing India is described as powers of attorney. Board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 are then produced which do not cover the instant proceedings and which envisage the execution of powers of attorney which are admittedly never executed. Vakalatnamas are not filed. Affidavits are signed and filed by K R Radhakrishnan even though he was not duly constituted as the attorney for the companies.
Once this fraud was exposed, a second attempt at fraudulently deceiving this court is made. In this second round of fraud, alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 have been produced which themselves claim to be the power of attorney instruments.
Before delving into the legal issue of whether or not these alleged board resolutions are powers of attorney and can directly appoint K R Radhakrishnan as the attorney of the companies, it is pointed out that the copies of the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 placed on record are not certified and authenticated as per usual practice and law. The certified minutes containing these board resolutions have not been placed on record.
A comparison of the letterheads on which “copies” of the two alleged board resolutions for GE Global Sourcing India have placed on record raises the suspicion that these documents are not genuine. The letterheads on which copies of these two board resolutions are printed are different even though they are for the same company and were allegedly signed in October and December of 2012.
The two alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 do not bear the company seal for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India. The GE logo on the letterheads on which these board resolutions are printed is illegible. The persons who have signed these documents are not identified.
The two alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 also do not bear the company seals and are merely stamped with a rubber stamp. The letterhead on which the alleged board resolution for GE India dated 17 December 2012 is printed also has a blurred and obscured GE logo.
Prima facie it appears that the documents placed on record by AZB purporting to reproduce copies of the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 issued by GE India and GE Global Sourcing India are forged and unauthentic documents.
Another unusual aspect about the two board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 is that both were apparently passed by circulation on 17 December 2012 and the vakalatnamas signed pursuant thereto are also dated 17 December 2012 and the affidavit that places these board resolutions on the court record was signed, verified and filed also on 17 December 2012.
The issue before the court is do the two board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 constitute powers of attorney appointing K R Radhakrishnan as the duly constituted attorney for respondents 6 and 7, i.e., for GE India and for GE Global Sourcing India.
The Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 defines a power of attorney as “any instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it.”
A Power of Attorney therefore is a written legal instrument executed by the person devolving the power of attorney on another “specified person” and thereby empowering the specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing the instrument.
Section 46 of the Companies Act provides:
“Form of contracts
(1) Contracts on behalf of a company may be made as follows:—
(a) a contract which, if made between private persons, would by law be required to be in writing signed by the parties to be charged therewith, may be made on behalf of the company in writing signed by any person acting under its authority, express or implied, and may in the same manner be varied or discharged;
(b) a contract which, if made between private persons, would by law be valid although made by parole only and not reduced into writing, may be made by parole on behalf of the company by any person acting under its authority, express or implied, and may in the same manner be varied or discharged.
(2) A contract made according to this section shall bind the company.”
A power of attorney on behalf of a company would therefore fall within Clause 1(a) of Section 46 of the Companies Act and is required to be in writing and executed/ signed on behalf of the company by a person acting under the authority of the company.
Section 48 of the Companies Act provides:
“Execution of Deeds
(1) A company may, by writing under its common seal, empower any person, either generally or in respect of any specified matters, as its attorney, to execute deeds on its behalf in any place either in or outside India .
(2) A deed signed by such an attorney on behalf of the company and under his seal where sealing is required, shall bind the company and have the same effect as if it were under its common seal.”
Under Indian law, a power of attorney executed on behalf of a company must be a written instrument signed by an authorized signatory for and on behalf of the company.
Admittedly, the powers of attorney envisaged under the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 in favour of K R Radhakrishnan were never executed.
The new alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 placed on record by AZB purport to directly appoint K R Radhakrishnan as the attorney of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India without the execution of written powers of attorney in favour of Radhakrishnan signed by an authorized signatory of these companies. This is not permissible under Indian law.
The documents described as copies of the board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 placed on record with Radhakrishnan’s affidavit dated 17 December 2012 cannot and do not in law appoint K R Radhakrishnan as the attorney for these companies.
A board resolution of a company is not a written instrument/ contract executed on behalf of the company. Board resolutions by themselves cannot appoint someone as an attorney of the company as this can only be done through a written instrument duly executed on behalf of the company by an authorized signatory signing such an instrument in the name of, for and on behalf of the company. This has admittedly not been done in the present case.
K R Radhakrishnan is therefore not a duly constituted attorney for GE India or for GE Global Sourcing India.
It is pointed out that the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 omit to mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the nature/ character/ subject matter of the writ petition.
The fact of this fraud being committed on the Delhi High Court is further confirmed by a strange provision in the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012. All 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 clause therefore raises the likelihood that the “unauthorized” instructions being sent to K R Radhakrishnan and/ or to AZB are not being sent directly from GE India or from GE Global Sourcing India but via other intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple layers of separation between the companies (and their legal officers) and these court proceedings are being maintained.
The vakalatnamas dated 17 December 2012 purportedly signed by him in favour of AZB on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India are therefore unauthorized and invalid.
The several affidavits signed and filed in this matter by K R Radhakrishnan on behalf of GE India and GE Global Sourcing India are also unauthorized as well as being false and perjurious.
AZB has continued to appear for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India in court in this matter without authority on subsequent dates including on 12, 19, 20 and 21 December 2012; on 7, 14, 16, 23, and 24 January 2013; on 4, 15 and 27 February 2013; on 18 March 2013; on 1, 11, 12, 18, 22 and 29 April, 2013; on 1, 3, 16, 22 and 31 May 2013.
Though the petitioner has raised this issue before the court on several dates and in subsequent applications, the Bench has so far failed to even take up this issue for hearing, arguments and decision.
Given that K R Radhakrishnan and AZB are not authorized to represent General Electric Company or its two Indian subsidiaries, GE India Industrial Private Limited or GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited, no affidavit or application filed by AZB in this matter on behalf of respondents 1, 6 and 7 should be considered or heard by the court until the court hears and decides the issues raised herein regarding the lack of authority in K R Radhakrishnan and AZB to represent these respondents.
On 17 July, 2013, the petitioner applied to inspect the court file. The file was first not made available to her and her application was returned with an invalid objection. The petitioner complained to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and upon her intervention, the petitioner was finally able to inspect the court file.
AZB has filed three fresh vakalatnamas on 16 July 2013 which have been placed in the “B” folder of the court file. These three vakalatnamas are also signed by K R Radhakrishnan. The fresh vakalatnamas dated 16 July 2013 for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India rely upon the alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012. As already dealt with above, these alleged board resolutions dated 17 December 2012 do not constitute Radhakrishnan as the constituted attorney for GE India and GE Global Sourcing India and do not confer upon him any authority to execute vakalatnamas for GE India and for GE Global Sourcing India.
The fresh vakalatnamas dated 16 July 2013 filed by AZB in this matter for respondents 6 and 7 (GE India and GE Global Sourcing India) are therefore invalid and do not confer any authority on AZB to represent these respondents in this writ petition.
The fresh vakalatnama filed by AZB on 16 July 2013 for General Electric Company (respondent 1) produces a new power of attorney allegedly executed on 29 April 2013 by Mr Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company and apostilled in the United States on 10 May 2013. I have read this new POA dated 29 April 2013 signed by Bradford Berenson and its provisions/ clauses are identical to those in the earlier POA dated 4 May 2012 signed by Alexander Dimitrief.
Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as the Operational Officer for Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric Company on 15 October 2012.
As Operational Officer for General Electric Company for litigation, Mr Bradford Berenson’s authority under the Board Resolution of General Electric Company would be subject to the same limitations as have been elaborated upon hereinabove in the context of the authority of Mr Alexander Dimitrief and Mr Brackett Denniston.
The POA dated 29 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson purportedly does the following:
It purports to delegate to K R Radhakrishnan the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company.
It purports to delegate to K R Radhakrishnan the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company.
It purports to delegate to K R Radhakrishnan the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name of and on behalf of General Electric Company.
It purports to authorize K R Radhakrishnan to accept service of summons and notices from a Court on behalf of General Electric Company.
Under the original document (the Board Resolution) conferring authority on him, Bradford Berenson did not/ does not have the authority to delegate to any person the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name and on behalf of General Electric Company.
Therefore Bradford Berenson could not have delegated/ can not delegate to K R Radhakrishnan (or to any other person) the authority to execute vakalatnamas or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to execute court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company; or the authority to give undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and statements of responsibility in the name and on behalf of General Electric Company.
The POA dated 29 April 2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company is in excess of the authority vested in Bradford Berenson under the Board Resolution and is therefore illegal, unauthorised and invalid and it can confer no authority on K R Radhakrishnan.
K R Radhakrishnan is therefore still not an authorised signatory of General Electric Company despite the new alleged POA dated 29 April 2013 signed by Bradford Berenson. The new vakalatnama executed by Radhakrishnan on 16 July 2013 appointing AZB to represent General Electric Company is also invalid.
Bradford Berenson also cannot ratify the vakalatnamas and affidavits purportedly signed by Radhakrishnan on behalf of General Electric Company. This is because the purported delegation of authority by Bradford Berenson on Radhakrishnan to execute powers of attorney and/ or court pleadings on behalf of General Electric Company is ultra vires the Board Resolution of General Electric Company which is the constitutional document and source of all authority to execute documents/ instruments on behalf of General Electric Company.
Just like Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson is under the terms of Paragraph A of the Board Resolution, only authorized to himself execute on behalf of General Electric Company the instruments of the type described in Paragraph A. The Board Resolution does not authorize Bradford Berenson to further delegate this authority to other persons.
It is pointed out that the POA dated 29 April 2013 also omits to mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the nature/ character/ subject matter of the writ petition.
This alleged POA dated 29 April 2013 signed by Bradford Berenson also provides that the powers conferred by the POA “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”.
This clause in the POA dated 29 April 2013 therefore further supports the likelihood that the “unauthorized” instructions being sent to K R Radhakrishnan and/ or to AZB are not being sent directly from General Electric Company but via other intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple layers of separation between General Electric Company (and its legal officers) and these court proceedings are being maintained.
The issue is very simple. The POA dated May 4, 2012 (signed by Alexander Dimitrief) and the new POA dated 29 April 2013 (signed by Bradford Berenson) through which K R Radhakrishnan and AZB & Partners claim to represent General Electric Company in these writ proceedings are both illegal and invalid because such POAs could not have been executed by Alexander Dimitrief or by Bradford Berenson under the Board Resolution through which Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson claim their authority.
K R Radhakrishnan cannot therefore act for and represent General Electric Company in these writ proceedings and AZB & Partners cannot appear for General Electric Company as the vakalatnamas (dated 7 December 2012, 17 December 2012, and 16 July 2013) in their favor signed by K R Radhakrishnan are invalid.
It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a legal entity like 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 record a vakalatnama duly executed by such party authorising the lawyer to represent it.
The Court has no discretion to allow a company to be represented in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and sufficient authority documents and has failed to establish his authority to represent the company. The Court has no discretion to permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and valid vakalatnama.
This application is being made in the interest of justice.
The petitioner has filed an application in this matter (CM 6096/ 2013 ) for recusal by the Bench of Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Deepa Sharma. This application is pending hearing after being listed before court on 16 May, 2013. The petitioner is vehemently pressing for immediate recusal by both Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Deepa Sharma. The present application is being filed without prejudice to this pending request for recusal. The present application is being filed at this time because of the grave urgency in this matter arising from the existing threat to the petitioner-whistleblower’s life, who is presently in danger, and sleeping in her car parked on public streets without any protection since 27 February, 2013. The petitioner once again requests Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Deepa Sharma to immediately recuse themselves from this matter so that it can be heard by another Bench.
This application is necessary to help protect the petitioner as it will help prevent the ongoing attempted cover-up of the petitioner’s corruption complaints and the ongoing attempted collusive subversion of these writ proceedings and the ongoing attempted elimination of the petitioner-whistleblower.
It is submitted that the proper conduct for the court will be to immediately recuse itself from this matter as prayed for in CM 6096/ 2013 and request the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to post this application before another Bench. These orders are necessary in the interest of justice in this matter.
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
Recall its directions to Nanju Ganapathy on 18 July 2013 to assist the court by filing a list of pending applications and the “prayers” in the writ petition;
Declare that Mr Nanju Ganpathy/ AZB & Partners cannot appear in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 on behalf of respondents 1, 6 and 7 as the vakalatnamas filed by them on December 7, 2012 and refiled on December 11, 2012 and the vakalatnamas filed by them on December 17, 2012 and the vakalatnamas filed by them on 16 July 2013 are all defective and invalid and declare that Mr Nanju Ganpathy/ AZB & Partners have no authority to represent respondents 1, 6 and 7 in these proceedings;
Immediately prohibit appearance by Mr Nanju Ganpathy and AZB & Partners on behalf of respondents 1, 6 and 7 in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 on the ground that vakalatnamas and authority documents placed on record by AZB on behalf of respondents 1, 6 and 7 are defective and invalid;
Issue notice of criminal contempt of court to Mr Brackett Denniston, Mr Alexander Dimitrief, Ms Zia Mody, Mr Nanju Ganpathy, Mr Manpreet Lamba, Mr Kartik Yadav, Mr Deepak Adlakha, Mr Abhishek Tiwari and Mr K R Radhakrishnan for committing a fraud on this court by falsely claiming that K R Radhakrishnan and AZB & Partners/ Nanju Ganpathy represent respondents 1, 6 and 7 and for aiding and abetting perjury by enabling the filing of false affidavits by Mr K R Radhakrishnan in Civil Writ Petition 1280 of 2012 with intent to subvert and sabotage the present writ petition;
Issue direct notice on the writ petition once again to respondents 1, 6 and 7 by dasti email and directing these respondents to appear in this matter through properly authorised counsel/advocates;
Direct the court registry to return the defective vakalatnamas filed on December 7, 2012 and refiled on December 11, 2012 and to also return the defective vakalatnamas filed on December 17, 2012 and July 16, 2013 by Nanju Ganpathy/ AZB & Partners in compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75];
Clarify that notice on the writ petition to respondents 8, 9, 10 and 11 as issued by this court on November 19, 2012, can be served dasti by email and courier only and not by all permissible modes of service;
Direct AZB & Partners, Nanju Ganapathy, and K R Radhakrishnan to produce the original records of the minutes of the board meetings/ resolutions of respondents 6 and 7 for the board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012, allegedly issued by respondents 5 and 6;
Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
Place: New Delhi Petitioner in Person
July 19, 2013 Seema Sapra
Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of the whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless and sleeping in her car since 27 February 2013
In the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
C. M. Appl. No. of 2013
In
Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra …Petitioner
versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, daughter of Late Shri A. R. Sapra, aged 41 years, previously resident of G 4, first floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi 110014 and rendered homeless on 30 May 2012 (because of and as a result of the whistleblower complaints of corruption, forgery, bribery, fraud and illegal activities made against General Electric, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Planning Commission, Railway Ministry and Ministry of Finance and as a result of the whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and because of my complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Soli J Sorabjee and Mr Raian Karanjawala) in contempt of this Hon’ble Court’s order dated May 25, 2012 and presently homeless and sleeping in my car since 27 February 2013 (except for a period of two weeks in June 2013) do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. I am the Petitioner in the present Petition and am well aware of the facts of the case and am competent to file the present affidavit.
2. I state that the accompanying application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking directions from the court regarding the legal/ court representation of respondents 1, 6 and 7 in this matter (along with affidavit) has been drafted by me and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed there-from.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this 19th day of July 2013, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
No comments:
Post a Comment