IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A.
NO. 112422 OF 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL DIARY NO. 10342 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL DIARY NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEEMA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent
APPLICATION SEEKING TO PLACE ON RECORD
DOCUMENTS FROM THE DELHI HIGH COURT RECORD IN WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 1280/2012
WHICH ESTABLISH THAT FRAUDULENT, INVALID AND FORGED DOCUMENTS WERE FILED IN THAT
CASE AS ‘AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS’ IN FAVOR OF ONE K R RADHAKRISHNAN WHO THEREBY
UNLAWFULLY IMPERSONATED AS THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRVATE LIMITED, AND GE GLOBAL SOURCING INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED IN THAT CASE AND WHO FILED FALSE, PERJURIOUS AND UNAUTHORIZED
AFFIDAVITS IN THAT CASE AS PART OF A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD ON THE
DELHI HIGH COURT AND TO COVER UP THE PETITIONER”S WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINTS
AGAINST GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY BY SABOTAGING WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO.
1280/2012.
To
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the
Supreme Court of India., the application of the Appellant/ Petitioner most
respectfully showeth:-
1.
As stated in the memo of the present appeal, this appeal challenging a
judgment of the Delhi High Court in a criminal contempt proceeding has its
genesis in a whistleblower right to life petition that the appellant had filed
in the Delhi High Court i.e., Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 in the matter
of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others (hereinafter referred to
as the “Writ Petition”).
2.
This appeal will establish that the appellant is a whistleblower, a
lawyer who worked in 2010 for General Electric Company in India and who was
compelled to make whistleblower complaints when her legal services were sought
to be used for corrupt practices including fraud, forgery, bribery, illegal
lobbying etc. in connection with Indian Railway tenders for rail locomotive
factories at Marhowra and Madhepura. This appeal will establish that attempts
were made to eliminate the appellant with State authorities including the
Police and intelligence agencies being used to target and silence the
appellant. The appellant managed to file an Article 226 petition in the Delhi
High Court. This appeal will establish that this petition languished unheard in
the Delhi High Court for 3 years while the appellant continued to be destroyed,
physically harmed, attacked, intimidated, harassed, targeted and threatened.
This Appeal will establish that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
wrongfully dismissed that Petition by a judgment dated 2.3.2015 without hearing
the appellant who was the petitioner in that matter in complete violation of
the principles of natural justice. This appeal will establish that the Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed the whistleblower corruption
case against General Electric Company in complete disregard of the material on
record before it, in complete disregard of the law and in complete disregard of
the appellant’s right to life. This appeal will establish that this
unsustainable and wrongful dismissal of the writ petition resulted in a
cover-up of very serious complaints and evidence of corruption by and favouring
General Electric Company facilitated by then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh
and his close aide and then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Mr
Montek Singh Ahluwalia. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal
of the Writ Petition and the denial of a hearing to the appellant in that
matter resulted in gross injustice, and a cover up of attempts to murder the
appellant, a cover-up of the fact that the appellant was poisoned, a cover-up
of State and police participation in the conspiracy and attempts to silence and
eliminate the appellant, a cover-up of the severe targeting that the appellant
was subjected to and a cover up of the gross violation of the appellant’s right
to life. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ
Petition has resulted in the appellant continuing to be poisoned for the last
one year since 2.3.2015, and continuing to be targeted, harassed, intimidated,
threatened, defamed and destroyed. This
appeal will further establish that a mind-boggling fraud was perpetrated on the
Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 where an unauthorized person
effectively impersonated as the authorised signatory of General Electric
Company and two of its subsidiaries and filed patently false and unauthorized
affidavits and that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition results in a
cover up of this massive fraud on the Court. This appeal will further establish
that affidavits filed for the Railway Ministry in the Writ Petition contained
multiple instances of perjury and included documents fabricated expressly for
the purpose of covering up the corruption by General Electric. Further this
appeal will establish that affidavits and status reports filed for the Delhi
Police in the Writ petition also contained multiple instances of perjury, and
that these affidavits and status reports themselves establish that the police
was targeting the appellant and besides actively facilitating her being
physically harmed, the police covered up her complaints and fabricated and
procured false complaints against her.
3.
The Appellant submits that the record of the present appeal before this
Hon’ble Court and the record of Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 establishes
that a man named K R Radhakrishnan was used to unlawfully impersonate as the
authorized signatory of General Electric Company and of its two Indian
subsidiaries (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India
Private Limited) and to file unauthorized and false affidavits in Delhi High
Court Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. The authority documents produced on
his behalf were invalid and fraudulent and forged. Thereby the criminal offences
of unlawful impersonation in court proceedings, perjury, forgery, obstruction
of justice and fraud on the Delhi High Court were committed as part of a
criminal conspiracy to cover up corruption by General Electric Company and
these facts are before this Hon’ble Court and are relevant facts for the
purposes of the present appeal. These facts establish that the appellant is a
whistle-blower and that the lawyers who purported to appear for the three General
Electric companies before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No.
1280/2012 were used to sabotage those judicial proceedings and that false,
unauthorized and perjurious affidavits were filed for General Electric Company
and its two Indian subsidiaries.
4.
The Appellant places reliance on paragraph 19 of the Memo of Appeal which
describes the Fraud on the Delhi High Court committed in Writ Petition Civil
No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of General Electric Company.
5.
The Appellant places reliance on paragraph 20 of the Memo of Appeal
which describes the Fraud on the Delhi High Court committed in Writ Petition
Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private
Limited.
6.
The impugned order in the present appeal itself refers to and
establishes that the record of Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012
is relevant to the hearing of the present appeal.
7.
The appellant has filed IA 122625/2017 (pending) with prayer to summon
the Delhi High Court records of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012, CONT.
CASE(CRL) 2/2014, CONT. CASE(CRL) 3/2012, and O.M.P.647/2012.
8.
The Appellant also relies upon the order passed in the present appeal on
9 October 2017 wherein the following orders were passed.
|
“Appellant-in-person states that she will
produce Appendix/Annexures before the Court at the time of hearing. She is
permitted to do so.”
and
“Appellant-in-person
states that she will produce Annexures before the Court at the time of
hearing. She is permitted to do so.”
|
9.
The present application is therefore being filed to place on record true
copies of the following documentsthat pertain to the issue of unlawful
impersonation of the US corporation General Electric Company and its two Indian
subsidiaries (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India
Private Limited) before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No.
1280/2012. All these documents were filed before the Delhi High Court in Writ
Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and are part of the public court record.
10.
Documents pertaining to General Electric
Company
|
Copy of the copy of the purported Power of Attorney executed by
Alexander Dimitrief allegedly on behalf of General Electric Company on
4.5.2012 (Annexure IA-1 hereto)and filed before the Delhi High Court on
19/10/2012
|
|
Copy
of the purported Vakalatnama dated 17.12.2012allegedly executed on behalf of
General Electric Company (Annexure IA-2 hereto) and filed before the Delhi
High Court on 17/12/2012
|
|
Copy
of the purported Vakalatnama dated 9/5/2013 allegedly executed on behalf of
General Electric Company (Annexure IA-3 hereto)and filed before the Delhi
High Court on 16/7/2013
|
|
Copy
of the copy of the purported power of attorney allegedly executed on 29 April
2013 by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company (Annexure
IA-4 hereto) and filed in the Delhi High Court on 16/7/2013
|
|
True
Copy of Board Resolution of General Electric Company dated 26.4.1988 [as
incorporated in the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised
on November 6, 2009)] setting out the authority of individuals to sign
documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company.
(Annexure IA-5 hereto) and filed in the Delhi High Court on 7 January 2013
|
|
True
Copy of the case history maintained by the Delhi High Court Registry for Writ
Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 (Annexure IA-6 here) as accessed from the Delhi
High Court website on 3 August 2018
|
11.
Documents pertaining to GE India Industrial
Private Limited
|
Copy of the alleged copy of the purported board resolution dated 7 May
2012 of GE India Industrial Private Limited (Annexure IA-7 hereto) and filed
before the Delhi High Court on 19/10/2012
|
|
Copy
of the purported Vakalatnama dated 17.12.2012 allegedly executed on behalf of
GE India Industrial Private Limited (Annexure IA-8 hereto) and filed before
the Delhi High Court on 17/12/2012
|
|
Copy
of the alleged copy of the purported Board Resolution of GE India Industrial
Private Limited dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure IA-9 hereto) and filed before the
Delhi High Court on 17/12/2012
|
|
Copy
of the purported Vakalatnama dated 16/7/2013 for GE India Industrial Private
Limited (Annexure IA-10 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 16/7/2013
|
|
Copy
of the alleged copy of the purported power of attorney dated 8 December 2014
allegedly executed by Tejal Patil on behalf of GE India Industrial Private
Limited (Annexure IA-11 hereto) and filed before the Delhi High Court on 28
January 2015
|
|
Copy
of the alleged copy of the purported Board Resolution of GE India Industrial
Private Limited dated 26/9/2013 (Annexure IA-12 hereto) and filed before the
Delhi High Court on 28 January 2015
|
|
Copy
of the alleged copy of the purported Board Resolution of GE India Industrial
Private Limited dated 10/9/2014 (Annexure IA-13 hereto) and filed before the
Delhi High Court on 28 January 2015
|
12.
Documents pertaining to GE Global Sourcing
India Private Limited
|
Copy of the alleged of purported board resolution dated 7 May 2012 of
GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited filed before the Delhi High Court on
19.10.2012 (Annexure IA-14 hereto)
|
|
Copy
of the purported Vakalatnama dated 17.12.2012 allegedly executed on behalf of
GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (Annexure IA-15 hereto) filed before
the Delhi High Court on 17/12/2012
|
|
Copy
of purported Board Resolution of GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited
dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure IA-16 hereto) filed before the Delhi High Court on
17/12/2012
|
|
Copy
of purported Vakalatnama dated 16/7/2013 allegedly executed on behalf of GE
Global Sourcing India Private Limited (Annexure IA-17 hereto) and filed
before the Delhi High Court on 16/7/2013
|
13.
It is submitted that a mere perusal of these documents attached to this
application read along with the submissions made on this issue and on these
documents,both herein, in the memo of appeal and in the applications moved
before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 challenging
these purported “authority documents”, establishes that all these authority
documents filed before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 were
and are invalid, fraudulent and forged and that these documents could not and did
not confer any authority on K R Radhakrishnan to represent himself as or act as
the authorized signatory for General Electric Company, or for GE India Industrial Private Limited or for GE Global
Sourcing India Private Limited before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition
Civil No. 1280/2012. Mr K R Radhakrishnan therefore fraudulently and unlawfully
impersonated as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company,GE India
Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited before
the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and committed perjury
and fraud on the Delhi High Court in that case by filing false and unauthorized
affidavits and by filing forged, invalid and fraudulent authority documents.
14.
The intent to defraud the Delhi High Court and to sabotage the hearing
of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is clear from the egregious and systematic
manner in which fraudulent authority documents (all inconsistent with each
other and all invalid in law) were repeatedly filed one after the other, in the
face of the petitioner’s several applications exposing this fraud and
challenging the validity of these authority documents.
15.
The Petitioner/ Appellant relies upon the following applications filed
by her in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 objecting to
these alleged authority documents and pointing out the fraud committed on the
Delhi High Court along with the criminal offences of perjury and forgery as
part of this unlawful and fraudulent impersonation by K R Radhakrishnan as
authorized signatory of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private
Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited in that case. None of
these applications were ever heard, taken up or decided by the Delhi High Court
and Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 was eventually wrongly disposed of as being infructuous
with the issues pertaining to these forged, fabricated, fraudulent and invalid
authority documents and the issue of the fraudulent and unlawful impersonation
by K R Radhakrishnan as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company,
GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private
Limited not being heard or decided by the Delhi High Court. None of these
applications were heard or decided by the Delhi High Court.
Applications on these issues filed by the
Petitioner in Delhi High Court Writ Petition 1280/2012
|
CM 18642/2012
|
|
CM
19370/2012
|
|
CM
19683/2012
|
|
CM
105/2013
|
|
CM
522/2013
|
|
CM
10493/2013
|
|
CM
18969/2014
|
|
CM
20069/2014
|
|
CM
1882/2015
|
16.
As a result, the petitioner’s whistle-blower and right to life petition
against General Electric Company filed in the Delhi High Court (Writ Petition
Civil No. 1280/2012) was sabotaged by the fraudulent and unlawful impersonation
of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global
Sourcing India Private Limited by K R Radhakrishnan who fraudulently impersonated
as the authorized signatory of these companies in that case, and whose
authority documents to make that claim are patently invalid, fraudulent, forged
and fabricated, and whose affidavits were not only consequently unauthorized
but were as pointed out in the detailed rejoinders of the petitioner filed in
WP Civil 1280/2012 false, misleading, evasive and outright perjurious.
17.
Facts concerning the fake authority documents allegedly issued by
Alexander Dimitrief& Bradford Berenson for General Electric Company and the
fraud committed by Alexander Dimitrief& Bradford Berenson in Delhi High
Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding the summons/ notice to
and appearance by General Electric Company are briefly set out below.
|
General Electric Company is a large conglomerate
incorporated in the United States. Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court
to General Electric Company on 7.3.2012.
Advocate NanjuGanpathy appeared on 9.5.2012
claiming to represent General Electric Company and continued to appear
thereafter. MrNanjuGanpathy was at that time and until recently was a Partner
in the law-firm AZB & Partners which is headed by is founding partner, Ms
Zia Mody, the daughter of Soli J Sorabjee who threatened the petitioner about
her whistle-blower complaints against General Electric Company.
Affidavits were filed on behalf of General
Electric Company through one K R Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No
authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of
General Electric Company were produced.
At Appellant's request, a court order dated
12.10.2012 directed NanjuGanpathy to produce authority documents to show that
K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of General Electric Company.
NanjuGanpathy filed a photocopy of a document purporting
to be a Power of Attorney executed by one Alexander Dimitrief on 4.5.2012.
This document had a validity of one year. A copy of this document was emailed
by NanjuGanpathy to the petitioner after repeated requests on November 12,
2012.
The petitioner filed CM 18642/2012 on 16 November
2012 pointing out the defects with this alleged authority document and that
this document was invalid.
Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been
filed by NanjuGanpathy so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December
2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi
High Court registry shows that a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce
necessary authority documents and was invalid in view of the Supreme Court of
India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1
SCC 75]
CM 19683/2012 was filed by Appellant on
14.12.2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and
did not annex the required authority documents.
A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This
vakalatnama was signed by K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory
for General Electric Company under the Power of Attorney (POA) dated 4.5.2012
allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company.
Affidavit of K Radhakrishnan filed on 7.1.2013
produced an extract from the Board Minutes of General Electric Company
containing Board Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009)
which authoritatively describes and
limits the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court
pleadings and POAs) on behalf of General Electric Company.
Petitioner filed CM 522/2013 on 14.1.2013
pointing out that the Board Resolution of General Electric Company placed on
the court record showed that the alleged Power of Attorney document was
ultra-vires, illegal and invalid.
NanjuGanpathy filed another vakalatnama for
General Electric Company on 16.7.2013. This vakalatnama was allegedly signed
by Bradford Berenson on 9.5.2013. (This document purportedly signed in the US
is not an apostilled document and therefore inadmissible for this reason as
well).
Attached to this vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 was
a photocopy of a document purporting to be a power of attorney allegedly
executed on 29 April 2013 by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric
Company. This was also only valid for one year.
The petitioner filed CM 10493 of 2013 on
19.7.2013 pointing out that the new vakalatnama dated 9.5.2013 was also
invalid as was the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson
dated 29.4.2013.
Since none of the petitioner’s applications on
this issue were being heard or even taken up by the Delhi High Court, and
because NanjuGanpathy continued to appear for General Electric Company
without a valid vakalatnama and since K Radhakrishnan continued to
impersonate as authorized signatory of General Electric Company, the
petitioner was constrained to move another application on this issue on 21
November 2014 being CM 18969 of 2014. Attached to this application (CM 18969
of 2014) as Annexure P-6 was a specimen signature of Bradford Berenson which
was completely different from the signature on the alleged Power of Attorney
dated 16.7.2013 and on the alleged vakalatnama dated 9.5.2013.
It is submitted that in any event, since the
Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 was valid only for one year, it lapsed and
ceased to have legal effect from 29.4.2014 onwards.
Therefore, even without going into the
authenticity and legal validity of the authority documents and vakalatnamas
filed on behalf of General Electric Company, it is an undisputable fact that
General Electric Company was not legally represented by anyone before the
Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 from 30.4.2014 onward.
Legal issues concerning these purported authority
documents and vakalatnamas
1. Were the Powers
of Attorneys dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander
Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson respectively lawful and valid authority
documents whereby K Radhakrishnan was appointed as the authorized signatory
of General Electric Company for the purpose of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/
2012 before the Delhi High Court?
2. Were these
documents placed on the court record by NanjuGanpathy fraudulent?
3. Did K
Radhakrishnan fraudulently and unlawfully impersonate as the authorized
signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in Writ
Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and file unauthorized and false affidavits?
4. Were Advocate
NanjuGanpathyand his junior colleagues authorized to represent and appear for
General Electric Company?
Who is K R Radhakrishnan?
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General
Electric Company. He has described himself in his affidavits as the company
secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited, a fully owned Indian
subsidiary of General Electric Company. This veracity of this fact needs to
be ascertained.
Who is Alexander Dimitrief?
Alexander Dimitrief was Vice President,
Litigation & Legal Policy of General Electric Company from 9 February
2007 until November 1, 2011 when he was appointed as General Counsel of GE
Energy. Alexander Dimitriefwas appointed as General Counsel of General
Electric Company with effect from 1.11.2015. He is no longer in that
position.
Who is Bradford Berenson.
Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as the
Operational Officer for Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric
Company on 15 October 2012. This was in the same position that Alexander
Dimitrief occupied until November 1, 2011. Curiously, this crucial
Operational Officer position at General Electric Company was not filled for
almost a year until 15 October 2012.
Were the Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and
29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson
legal and valid in law?
The authority of individuals to sign documents
(including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company emanates
from Board Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009). as
incorporated in the Board Minutes of General Electric Company.
Under this Board Resolution, both Alexander
Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson themselves had the authority to sign court
pleadings and powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company for
litigation purposes but they had no
authority to further delegate this authority to anyone.
This Board Resolution is reproduced hereinafter
enclosed in a separate table. The text of the Power of Attorney dated
4.5.2012 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and the Power of Attorney
dated 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson is also reproduced
hereinafter enclosed in separate tables.
General Electric Company's Board Resolution
No. 10855 stipulates in Paragraph A that certain types of documents/
instruments including court pleadings and powers of attorney can only be
signed on behalf of General Electric Company by
(i) Corporate Officers of the Company who are
identified by position as "Authorized Persons";
(ii) by an Operational Officer of the Company
where such document pertains to the component or function to which such
officer is assigned;
(iii) by a Manager or Acting Manager of the
relevant Division or Department of General Electric Company.
K R Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General
Electric Company.
Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had no
authority to delegate to anyone including to K R Radhakrishnan, the authority
to execute either court pleadings or powers of attorney (or vakalatnamas
which are a special form of power of attorney) on behalf of General Electric
Company in relation to Writ Petition Civil No. 1290/2012 filed in the Delhi
High Court.
The Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and
29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson
respectively were therefore executed in violation of the relevant board resolution
of General Electric Company, were themselves unauthorized,illegal and invalid
documents and which therefore conferred no authority upon K Radhakrishnan to act
as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High
Court.
K Radhakrishnan therefore impersonated as the
authorized signatory of General Electric Company and the affidavits filed by
him before the Delhi High Court were unauthorized, false and perjurious.
Brackett Denniston (who retired as General
Counsel of General Electric Company on 31.10.2015), Alexander Dimitrief and
Bradford Berenson knowingly participated in a criminal obstruction of justice
conspiracy to falsify fraudulent and invalid powers of attorney with intent
to enable K R Radhakrishna to unlawfully impersonate as the authorized
signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in a
whistleblower litigation involving complaints and evidence of corruption by
General Electric Company. K Radhakrishnan was used to commit a fraud on the
Delhi High Court, on the Government of India and on General Electric Company
itself. K Radhakrishnan was used to sign and file false and unauthorized
affidavits in the Delhi High Court.
Information about this litigation was suppressed
by Brackett Denniston, Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson and Jeffrey
Eglash, all senior level in-house lawyers for General Electric Company.
|
|
EXTRACTS FROM MINUTES OF
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
April 26, 1988
(Revised March 9, 2007)
(Revised November 6, 2009)
10855 EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS AND OTHER
INSTRUMENTS
The
Chairman reminded the Board that the resolution dealing with the execution of
contracts and other instruments on behalf of the company had last been
reviewed and revised by the Board in June, 1985, at which time the resolution
had been modified to reflect changes in the Company’s organization ad to
change its form to make periodic organization updatings unnecessary under
ordinary circumstances.
The Chairman noted that the
principal purpose of this resolution is to indicate to persons outside the
Company the individuals within the Company who have authority to sign various
documents.
In view of the Board’s determination
to limit the individuals elected as officers of the Company (and authorize
the Chairman of the Board to appoint and remove persons as non-corporate
Operational Officers), he indicated that it would be advisable to consider
revising and clarifying this resolution to take account of these
clarifications and related matters.
The Chairman pointed out that, like
the existing resolution, the proposed resolution would not confer any
authority to approve transactions underlying the documents to be signed over
and above that which is possessed by the signer either by virtue of the
powers inherent in that individual’s position with the Company or by virtue
of a delegation of authority to that individual by the Board of Directors or
higher management.
Following discussion, it was
RESOLVED, that
“(A) Any contract, lease, license, assignment, bond or other
obligation, conveyance, power of attorney, guarantee, proxy, court pleading,
release, tax return, and related documents, or other instruments may be
executed on behalf of this Company by the Chairman of the Board, a Vice
Chairman of the Board, an Executive Vice President, a Senior Vice President,
a Vice President reporting directly to the Chairman or a Vice Chairman of the
Board, the Comptroller, the Treasurer, the Secretary or any Vice President
who is a corporate staff officer of the Company, all of the above-named
individuals being hereinafter called “Authorized Persons”.
In addition to the foregoing, any
Operational Officer may sign any instrument of the type described in this
Paragraph (A) which relates to the component or function to which such
Operational Officer is assigned, and any Manager, or formally designated
Acting Manager, of any Division or Department level organization component
may sign any such instrument which relates to that component. Each
Operational Officer and each such Manager or Acting Manager is authorized to
delegate to others, authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the types
of contracts or other instruments which relate to the function or component
to which such Operational Officer, Manager or Acting Manager is assigned
which are of the same types as the contracts and other instruments listed in
Paragraph (C) below.
(B) The
Chairman of the Board and each of the Vice Chairmen of the Board is
authorized to delegate to others authority to execute contracts and other
instruments on behalf of the Company as he considers necessary and in the
best interest of the Company.
(C) Each
Authorized Person is hereby authorized to delegate to others authority to
execute on behalf of the Company the following types of contracts and other
instruments which relate to the function or component for which such
Authorized Person is responsible:
1. Sales,
purchase and consignment contracts …
2. Installation,
erection, and service contracts …
3. Assignments, waivers of lien, releases,
guaranties, mortgages, indentures, credit agreements …
4. Contracts, leases, deeds, or other
instruments relating to real property …
5. Powers of Attorney authorizing agents
and attorneys to acquire and dispose of motor vehicles …
6. Powers of Attorney authorizing agents
and attorneys to transact business of the Company with the U.S. Customs
Service and with customs authorities in other countries.
(D) The Senior Vice President-Finance and the
Vice President and Treasurer are each severally authorized to delegate to
others authority to execute on behalf of the Company the following types of
instruments, and in connection therewith to establish, as appropriate,
Company-wide procedures:
1. Agreements or other instruments relating
to (a) investment of funds of the Company …
2. Checks, drafts, other payment
authorizations and notes payable of the Company …
3. Guarantees of indebtedness of foreign or
domestic affiliates of the Company …
E) The Senior Vice President-Finance and the
Vice President and Comptroller are each severally authorized to delegate to
others authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the following types of
contracts and other instruments:
1. Federal,
State or local tax returns …
2. Reports of collections from employees
and taxes due from the Company …
3. Applications, claims, surrender and
other forms in connection with the General Electric Supplemental Life
Insurance Program
4. Annual, financial and other reports
required of the Administrator …
5. Such certifications, invoices, reports,
releases and other instruments as are necessary to conform to requirements of
the United States Government …
(F) The General Counsel is authorized to
delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the
following types of instruments:
1. Licences, contracts, assignments,
releases, court pleadings and other instruments relating to inventions and
technology and to patent, trademark and copyright matters.
2. Petitions, powers of attorney,
authorizations, verifications, nominations of representatives, declarations,
and other instruments relating to proceedings in the Patent, Trademark
Registration or Copyright Offices servicing any country or region of the
world, or to related appeal proceedings, or relating to maintenance and
defense of the resulting industrial property rights, assignment of rights to
apply for and acquire patents and trademark registrations, evidence of such
assignments, requests for the registration of patents as available for
licencing, reports of inventions and petitions for waiver of patent rights to
any department or agency of the United States Government and assignments,
licenses and other instruments confirmatory of Government rights in patents
and inventions.
(G) Any
contract, lease, deed or other instrument relating to real property or to any
improvements located or to be located thereon may be executed on behalf of
this Company by any of the following of the Global Asset Management division
of GE Capital Real Estate: the Senior Vice President, Global Asset
Management, the Managing Director-Corporate Properties and Services
Operation, the Manager-Legal Operation of the Corporate Properties and
Services Operation, or the Director-Corporate Real Estate of the Real Estate
Services Operation.
H) Any delegations (including revocations
and revisions) as authorized by this Resolution shall be in writing.
Authority delegated pursuant to the last sentence of Paragraph (A) or
pursuant to Paragraphs (B), (C), (D), (E) or (F) above may be redelegated by
the persons to whom such delegations are made who in turn may authorize
further redelegation; provided, however, that no such initial or subsequent
redelegation shall be made except in conformity with the limitations imposed
thereon by the initial delegation plus any restrictions contained in
subsequent redelegations.
(I) The
Secretary, the Associate Corporate Secretary and any Attesting Secretary are
each severally authorized to affix the Corporate Seal to and attest to
contracts and other instruments executed by persons acting pursuant to the
authority granted by Paragraphs (A) or (G) above or pursuant to the authority
delegated in accordance with Paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F) or (H)
above. The Secretary, the Associate Corporate Secretary and any Attesting
Secretary are also each severally authorized to certify as to the provisions
of this Resolution, as to the incumbency of any person in any position within
the Company and as to the terms of any delegation under this Resolution.
(J) Resolution
#10502 dated June 28, 1985 is superseded effective as of April 26, 1988.
|
|
Reproduced
below is the language of the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by
Alexander Dimitrief. This document is also invalid because it incorrectly
identifies K R Radhakrishnan, the alleged Attorney by wrongly describing him
as son of K R Radhakrishnan and by recording his address incorrectly.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO ALL TO
WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME WE, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY a company
incorporated under the laws of the state of New York acting through its
principal office at 3135Easton Turnpike, Fairfield, CT 06828, United States
of America, hereinafter referred to as “the Grantor” (which expression shall,
unless repugnant to the subject, meaning or context thereof, be deemed to
include its successors in interest and assigns) SEND GREETINGS
WHEREAS:
A. The Grantor
carries on the business inter alia of generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity, industrial automation, railway locomotives,
motors, aircraft jet engines.
B. The Grantor
has been impleaded as a party to certain proceedings before the Delhi High
Court filed by Ms. Seema Sapra, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of
Delhi (“Proceedings”) and for the purpose of these Proceedings the Grantor is
desirous of appointing a fit and proper person to prosecute and defend and
for that purpose to appear and represent the Grantor before the Delhi High
Court and the Supreme Court of India as may be necessary, in relation to the
Proceedings and does hereby nominate Mr. K. R. Radhakrishnan (the “Attorney”)
to act for the Grantor which the Attorney has consented to do.
NOW KNOW YE
AND THESE PRESETS WITNESS THAT THE GRANTOR does hereby nominate, constitute
and appoint Mr. Mr. K R Radhakrishnan, aged about 53 years, son of Mr. K. R.
Radhakrishnan and residing at A 202, Emeral Court I, Essel Towers, MG Road,
Gurgaon 122 002, India to be the true and lawful Attorney in its name and on
its behalf to do, perform and execute with respect to the Proceedings from
time to time all or any of the following acts, deeds and things, that is to
say:
1.
With respect to the Proceedings to appear
and represent the Grantor before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court
of India as may be necessary for or in connection with the Proceedings, and
also to prefer any appeal or proceeding against any order passed therein, as
instructed by us in writing.
2.
To give in the name and on behalf of the
Grantor such undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and
statements of responsibility as shall be confirmed and instructed by us in
connection with or incidental to the Proceedings.
3.
To engage Advocate/s, Solicitor/s, legal
Adviser and/or Arbitrators, and to instruct them and to sign, verify, execute
and/or provide the necessary vakalatnama, plaint, written statement,
petitions, affidavits, appeals, applications, pleadings, and evidence in the
Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India, in relation to the
Proceedings, and papers of every description that may be necessary to be
signed, verified and executed by the Grantor or in the name of the Grantor or
on behalf of the Grantor for the purpose of the Proceedings and also to
accept service of summons, notices or other proceedings of the Delhi High
Court and the Supreme Court of India and to act, appear and apply on our
behalf in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
4.
THE GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES that the
Attorney is not authorized to delegate any of his powers hereby conferred and
is not permitted to appoint substitutes.
5.
THE GRANTOR DOES HEREBY UNDERTAKE to ratify
and confirm whatever the Attorney by virtue of this Power of Attorney may
lawfully do or cause to be done in and by virtue of these presents.
6.
THE GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER DECLARES that
the powers hereby conferred shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise
affected by the fact of the Grantor acting either directly or through another
agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained.
7.
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY shall supersede all
previously issued powers of attorney in respect of the same subject matters.
8.
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.
9.
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 Grantor in writing or lapse
of a period of 1 (one) year from the date of its execution, which ever occurs
earlier.
IN WITNESS
THEREOF the Grantor, have hereunto set our hand this 4th day of
May, 2012.
SIGNED AND
DELIVERED
by General
Electric Company)
by its
authorized signatory
Alexander
Dimitrief
|
|
Reproduced
below is the language of the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Bradford
Berenson in 2013. This document is also invalid because it incorrectly
identifies K R Radhakrishnan as “working as Company Secretary of GE
Industrial India Private Limited” whereas the relevant Company’s name is GE
India Industrial Private Limited. Here K Radhakrishnan’s age is given as 56
years in 2013 whereas in the Power of Attorney from 2012 his age is shown as
53 years. His affidavits from 2013 filed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012
also mention his age as 53 years.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO ALL TO
WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME WE, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY a company
incorporated under the laws of the state of New York acting through its
principal office at 3135Easton Turnpike, Fairfield, CT 06828, United States
of America, hereinafter referred to as “the Grantor” (which expression shall,
unless repugnant to the subject, meaning or context thereof, be deemed to
include its successors in interest and assigns) state as follows:
WHEREAS:
A. The Grantor
carries on the business inter alia of generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity, industrial automation, railway locomotives,
motors, aircraft jet engines.
B. The Grantor
is desirous of appointing a fit and proper person to engage and instruct
advocates/counsel to act, appear and plead on behalf of the Grantor in all
legal proceedings by or against the Grantor in India before all courts,
including the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, tribunals, judicial
and quasi0judicial authorities in relation to Ms. Seema Sapra d/o Late Sh. A.
R. Sapra (“Proceedings”), and to sign
and verify all pleadings and affirm all affidavits and other requisite
documents, on behalf of the Grantor in all such Proceedings, to file and
verify any documents, as aforesaid and
to generally do all such things as may be required to be done in the conduct
of such Proceedings, and does hereby nominate K. R. Radhakrishnan
(hereinafter referred to as the “Attorney”) to act for the Grantor which the
Attorney has consented to do.
NOW KNOW YE
AND THESE PRESETS WITNESS THAT THE GRANTOR does hereby nominate, constitute
and appoint K R Radhakrishnan, S/o Late Sh. K Ramanurthy, aged about 56
years, working as Company Secretary of GE Industrial India Private Limited,
having its registered office at 401, 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal
Millenium Tower, E-1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, to be the true and lawful Attorney in its
name and on its behalf to do, perform and execute with respect to the
Proceedings from time to time all or any of the following acts, deeds and things, that is to say:
1.
With respect to the Proceedings to appear
and represent the Grantor before any court, tribunal, judicial or
quasi-judicial authority in India or before the Bar Council of Delhi and the
Bar Council of India as may be necessary, required or advisable for or in
connection with the Proceedings including to commence any action or other
proceedings in respect thereof and to prosecute or discontinue and also to
prefer any appeal or proceeding against any order passed therein, as
instructed by Grantor in writing.
2.
To give in the name and on behalf of the
Grantor such undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents and
statements of responsibility as shall be instructed by Grantor in connection
with or incidental to the Proceedings.
3.
To engage Advocate/s, Solicitor/s, legal
Adviser/s and/or Arbitrator/s, and to remove him or them and to appoint in
their place other Advocate/s, Solicitor/s, Legal Adviser/s and/or
Arbitrator/s as the Attorney shall deem fit, and to instruct them and to sign,
verify, execute and/or provide the necessary vakalatnama, plaint, written
statement, petitions, affidavits, appeals, applications, pleadings, and
evidence in any court, tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial authority in
India or in the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India, in
relation to the Proceedings, and papers of every description that may be
necessary to be signed, verified and executed by the Grantor or in the name
of the Grantor or on behalf of the Grantor for the purpose of the Proceedings
and also to accept service of summons, notices or other proceedings of any
court, tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial authority in India or the Bar
Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of India and to act, appear and apply on
Grantor’s behalf in any court, tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial authority
in India or the Bar Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of India.
4.
THE GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES that the
Attorney is not authorized to delegate any of her powers hereby conferred and
is not permitted to appoint substitutes.
5.
THE GRANTOR DOES HEREBY UNDERTAKE to ratify
and confirm whatever the Attorney by virtue of this Power of Attorney may
lawfully do or cause to be done in and by virtue of these presents.
6.
THE GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER DECLARES that
the powers hereby conferred shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise
affected by the fact of the Grantor acting either directly or through another
agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained.
7.
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY shall supersede all
previously issued powers of attorney in respect of the same subject matters.
8.
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY shall remain in full
force and effect until it is revoked by the Grantor in writing or lapse of a
period of 1 (one) year from the date of its execution, whichever occurs
earlier.
IN WITNESS
THEREOF the Grantor, have hereunto set our hand this 29th day of April,
2013.
SIGNED AND
DELIVERED
by General
Electric Company)
by its
authorized signatory
Bradford A.
Berenson
|
|
Both these
alleged Powers of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and
Bradford Berenson have a curious clause. The Alexander Dimitrief Power of
Attorney states:
“6. THE GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER DECLARES that
the powers hereby conferred shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise
affected by the fact of the Grantor acting either directly or through another
agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained.’
A similar
clause exists in the Bradford Berenson Power of Attorney. These clauses
essentially provide that the instructions to the alleged attorney K R
Radhakrishnan or to the AZB lawyers need not directly emanate from General
Electric Company but might come via any number of layers of unnamed,
unidentified, undisclosed and unknown intermediaries including other agents
or attorneys. Therefore, these alleged powers of attorney also fail to
provide or establish a direct link between K R Radhakrishnan and General
Electric Company. Therefore, not only does K R Radhakrishnan have no direct
knowledge of the facts involving General Electric Company, the actual source
of his knowledge is also not General Electric Company but one or more of
these unknown intermediaries, who themselves might have no official connection
to General Electric Company.
These
Powers of Attorney were therefore nothing but a device to create several
degrees of separation and distance between Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012
and General Electric Company and between General Electric Company and its
alleged attorney K R Radhakrishnan.
The above
facts raise several issues. K R Radhakrishnan impersonated as the authorized
signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court, The Powers
of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson
produced before the Delhi High Court were invalid, illegal and fraudulent.
The three vakalatnamas produced for General Electric Company were invalid,
illegal and fraudulent. MrNanjuGanpathy and other lawyers who appeared for
General Electric Company in this matter at different times (including Mr
Rajiv Nayar, Mr Rakesh Tiku, MrAbhiskek Tiwari, Mr Manpreet Lamba, Mr Kartik
Yadav) all appeared without authorization. All affidavits filed in this
matter byMr K R Radhakrishnan purporting to be on behalf of General Electric
Company were unauthorized, false, perjurious, hearsay and inadmissible.
In
addition, these facts also raise the following important question of law:
Can a
company like General Electric Company, one of the largest and richest
corporations in the world, avoid appearing before an Indian court like the
Delhi High Court in a writ petition seeking writs directing the Indian
Government to act on complaints and evidence of corruption against the
Company in a high value tender matter, by appointing an outsider as
arms-length power of attorney to represent it in the proceedings. Does this
not amount to avoiding the summons of the Court?
The
Petitioner has accessed other Powers of Attorney or authority documents for
General Electric Company publicly available on the internet and in all those
documents, the document is duly attested by an attesting secretary of General
Electric Company. No such attestation by an attesting secretary of General
Electric Company appears on the alleged Powers of Attorney allegedly executed
by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson and produced before the Delhi
High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
All the
applications filed by the petitioner setting out the above objections to the
authority documents for K R Radhakrishnan and Advocate NanjuGanpathy were
simply adjourned by several Delhi High Court Benches and were never
considered or taken up for hearing in the three years during which Writ
Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 remained pending in the Delhi High Court.
|
18.
Facts about the fake authority documents for GE India Industrial Private
Limited filed in Delhi High Court and the fraud committed in the Delhi High
Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India
Industrial Private Limited are briefly set out below.
|
One K Radhakrishnan impersonated as authorized
signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited in the Delhi High Court in
Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 using fraudulent authority
documents.
GE India Industrial Private Limited is a wholly
owned Indian subsidiary of the US conglomerate General Electric Company.
Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to GE India Industrial Private
Limited on 7.3.2012.
Advocate NanjuGanpathy appeared on 9.5.2012
claiming to represent GE India Industrial Private Limited and continued to
appear thereafter. MrNanjuGanpathy is a Partner in the law-firm AZB &
Partners.
Affidavits were filed on behalf of GE India
Industrial Private Limited through one K Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and
3.8.2012. No authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized
signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited were produced.
The counter- affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated
3.7.2012 merely stated that K Radhakrishnan was the authorized signatory of
GE India Industrial Private Limited. The affidavit contained a verification
clause which was signed but not affirmed before an oath commissioner. Another
two-page affidavit of K Radhakrishnan was filed with this unverified counter-affidavit
which merely stated that K Radhakrishnan was the authorised signatory of GE
India Industrial Private Limited in the matter “pursuant to the powers of
attorney executed in my favour in this regard”. No power of attorney or any
other authority document was annexed to this counter-affidavit which
otherwise contained thirteen annexures with the affidavit itself running into
206 pages.
At Appellant's request, Delhi High Court order
dated 12.10.2012 directed NanjuGanpathy to produce authority documents to
show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of GE India Industrial
Private Limited.
NanjuGanpathy filed a photocopy of a document on
19.10.2012 which was described as a board resolution dated 7 May 2012 passed
by GE India Industrial Private Limited and which was effective up to
31.3.2013. No power of attorney was produced for GE India Industrial Private
Limited.
Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been
filed so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi
High Court registry shows a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce
necessary authority documents and was defective and invalid in view of the
Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad
Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75]
The Supreme Court of India in Uday Shankar Triyar
v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75] has ruled that a vakalatnama on
behalf of a company must either bear the company seal or it must mention the
name and designation of the person signing the vakalatnama (on behalf of the
company) below the signature AND a copy of the authority must be annexed to
the vakalatnama. The Supreme Court further ruled that if a vakalatnama is
executed by a power-of-attorney holder of a party, the failure to disclose
that it is being executed by an attorney holder and the failure to annex a
copy of the power of attorney will render the vakalatnama defective.
CM 19683/2012 filed by Appellant on 14.12.2012
pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and did not
annex the required authority documents.
A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This
vakalatnama was signed by K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory
for GE India Industrial Private Limited.
K Radhakrishnan also filed two affidavits dated
17.12.2012 on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
The first affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated
17.12.2012 was a reply to CM 18642/ 2012 (it begins at page 3874 of the of
the Delhi High Court record). This affidavit contained the following
statement at page 3878 of the court record:
In this affidavit, K Radhakrishnan therefore
clearly admitted that no power of attorney in his favor had been issued on
behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited pursuant to the Board
Resolution dated 7.5.2012. A bare perusal of the Board Resolutions dated
7.5.2012 shows that it clearly contemplated the execution of a power of
attorney in favor of K Radhakrishnan.
The admitted non-execution of a power of attorney
in favor of K Radhakrishnan on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited
shows that K Radhakrishnan was never appointed as the attorney of GE India
Industrial Private Limited for the purpose of this writ petition and he was
not authorized to sign the vakalatnamas and court pleadings on behalf of GE
India Industrial Private Limited.
Further the board resolution dated 7.5.2012 which
was produced as an authority document by K Radhakrishnan did not even cover
the Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 filed in the Delhi High Court by the
Appellant against General Electric Company.
The “Proceedings” covered by the Board
Resolutions dated 7.5.2012 therefore did not include the writ petition filed
by the Appellant against GE India Industrial Private Limited as the subject
matter of theseboard resolutions was limited to proceedings that GE India
Industrial Private Limited might initiate against the Appellant.
The fraud that was perpetrated on the Delhi High
Court is extremely evident. In the first instance, the source of K
Radhakrishnan’s authority to represent GE India Industrial Private Limited
was described as a power of attorney in his favor in his affidavits but this
document was not produced.Vakalatnamas were not filed.
A board resolution dated 7.5.2012 was then
produced (after being compelled by a court order) which however did not cover
the writ petition proceeding and which envisaged the execution of a power of
attorney and which (as admitted on affidavit later) was never executed.
Vakalatnama was not filed. Affidavits were signed and filed by K
Radhakrishnan even though he was not duly constituted as the attorney for GE
India Industrial Private Limited.
Once the Appellant pointed out these deficiencies
on the court record of the writ petition, a second attempt at fraudulently
deceiving the court was attempted by producing a board resolution dated 17.12.2012
which misrepresents itself as a power of attorney.
An affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 17.12.2012
produced a copy of what was described as another Board Resolution of GE India
Industrial Private Limited dated 17.12.2012. K Radhakrishnan now claimed to
be the constituted attorney for GE India Industrial Private Limited under
this Board Resolution dated 17.12,2012.
This new alleged board resolution dated
17.12.2012 is a strange document that masquerades as a power of attorney by
itself. It records that the consent of the Boards of GE India Industrial
Private Limited is accorded to authorise and appoint K Radhakrishnan (the
Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited) as the attorney of
the Company interalia to defend proceedings initiated against the Company by
Ms. Seema Sapra in the Delhi High Court. This board resolution does not
contain the usual provision that contemplates and authorises the execution of
a power of attorney instrument.
Instead in its final paragraph, this board resolution
claims to be the power of attorney instrument itself and states: “RESOLVED
FURTHER THAT this power of attorney is governed by, and shall be construed in
accordance with the laws of India and shall remain in full force and effect
until it is revoked by the company in writing or until December 16, 2014
whichever occurs earlier”.
The copies of the alleged board resolutions dated
7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 placed on record were not certified and
authenticated as per usual practice and law. The certified minutes containing
these board resolutions were not produced.
A comparison of the photocopies of the
letterheads containing the two alleged board resolutions for GE India
Industrial Private Limited which were filed raises the suspicion that these
documents were not genuine. The alleged board resolution dated 7.5.2012 does
not bear the company seal. The GE logo on the letterhead on which these
board resolutions are printed is illegible. The persons who have signed these
documents dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 are not identified. The letterhead on
which the alleged board resolution for GE India dated 17.12.2012 is printed
has a blurred and obscured GE logo. Prima facie it appears that the documents
filed as board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 are forged and
unauthentic.
The board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 omitted to
mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the
nature/ character/ subject matter of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
The fact of this fraud committed on the Delhi
High Court is further confirmed by a strange provision in the board
resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012. Both these board resolutions
provide that the powers conferred “shall not be prejudiced, determined or
otherwise affected by the fact of the Company acting either directly or
through another agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes
herein contained”.
This illegal and invalid clause was obviously
inserted to allow for “unauthorized” instructions to be sent to K R Radhakrishnan
and NanjuGanpathy which were not sent directly from GE India but via other
unidentified and unknown persons/ intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple
layers of separation between the Company (and its legal officers) and court
proceedings in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280. 2012 were maintained.
NanjuGanpahy filed another vakalatnama dated
16.7.2013 also signed by K Radhakrishnan. This vakalatnama also relied upon
the alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 to establish K Radhakrishnan’s
authority to act as attorney for GE India.
The Appellant filed CM 10493 of 2013 on 19.7.2013
placing the above facts and objections on record and objecting to K
Radhakrishnan being allowed to represent GE India and objecting to
NanjuGanpathy appearing for GE India. This application was unfortunately not
taken up for hearing.
On 21.11.2014, the Appellant moved another
application being CM No. 18969 of 2014 again seeking directions on these
issues. This was also unfortunately adjourned by the Court without being
taken up despite the appellant’s requests that orders were necessary on these
issues.
Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012 went before
a new Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji on 19.1.2015.
It was adjourned to 20 and then 22 January 2015. On all these three days, the
Bench held a formal hearing for about an hour but the appellant was not
permitted to argue the matter. The Bench was insistent that the matter had
become infructuous. The Bench did not allow Ms. Seema Sapra to argue her
case, and repeatedly kept interrupting her. For most of these three hours
spread over three days, Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P. S Teji kept
repeating that the matter was infructuous. They repeatedly interrupted Ms.
Seema Sapra to prevent her from arguing the case. The matter was then
adjourned to 3.2.2015.
On 19.1.2015, when Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/
2012 went before Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji, all the alleged
authority documents filed for the three General Electric respondents had also
expired by lapse of time on the following dates.
Despite the Appellant’s objections, orders dated
19, 20 and 22 January 2015 passed by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P S Teji
recorded the appearance of Manpreet Lamba for GE India Industrial Private
Limited, General Electric Company and GE Global Sourcing India Private
Limited. The Appellant therefore declared her intent to impugn these orders
in a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of India and applied for
certified copies of these orders. This intent was also communicated by the
Appellant to Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P S Teji on 19, 20, and 22 January
2015. The matter was adjourned to 3 February 2015.
The petitioner was being poisoned and was
poisoned again in this interregnum.
The petitioner learnt that on 28 January 2015,
some document described in the court’s electronic filing system as
“vakalatnama” was filed under the name of NanjuGanpathy in this matter under
diary no. 37442/2015. The Petitioner repeatedly requestedMrNanjuGanpathyto
supply copies of these documents to the Petitioner but he did not respond.
The Petitioner therefore inspected the court
record on 29 January 2015 and looked at the new documents filed through
NanjuGanpathy on 28 January 2015 which had been placed in the court file in
folder B.
The Petitioner then filed CM 1882 of 2015 addressing
these new alleged authority documents which were actually completely
irrelevant documents being passed off as authority documents. The petitioner
also sought copies of these documents. This application was listed before the
High Court on 3.2.2015. The petitioner also applied for certified copies of
the new alleged authority documents filed on 28.1.2015. On 2.2.2015 at
around 4 pm, NanjuGanpathy sent scanned copies of these new authority
documents filed on 28.1.2015 to the Petitioner. These were incomplete as the
scans excluded the edges of the documents.
Before addressing these new alleged authority
documents filed on 28.1.2015, the nature of the hearing on 3.2.2015 is
described below.
On 3.2.2015, Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S.
Teji insisted that the Petitioner address the Court on the merits of the
case. They then held another hearing for about an hour and a half and
suddenly cut off the petitioner who had commenced arguments on the issue of
the corruption involving General Electric Company, PricewaterhouseCoopers and
Vinod Sharma and declared that they could not give the petitioner further
time. They rose and declared that judgment was being reserved. The Petitioner
objected stating she had just started her arguments. The Bench ignored her
and walked out.
CM 1882 of 2015 and the earlier applications on
the issue of appearance by the General Electric respondents were not taken up
for hearing on 3.2.2015 or decided.
What were the new documents filed on 28.1.2015?
No new “vakalatnama” was filed. Three documents
were filed which were described in the table of contents as:
The first document is what purports to be a Power
of Attorney in favor of K Radhakrishnan allegedly executed by Tejal Patil on
behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited, who is described therein as a
Director. This alleged POA is dated 8/12/2014 and described as being valid
until 30/9/2015.
This alleged PoA has not been executed on
non-judicial stamp paper and is also not notarized. No company stamp is
affixed. It bears signatures of two witnesses named as Ira Shukla and Shweta
Malhotra without any information about who these witnesses are or their addresses.
The typing, font and formatting on the first and second page of this document
do not match and are different. On the face of it, this POA is invalid,
forged and fraudulent.
This alleged POA refers to a Board Resolution
dated 10/9/14 and claims to have been executed pursuant to this Board
Resolution dated 10/9/14.
This document does not mention WP Civil
1280/2012, or OMP 647/2012, or the alleged arbitration before Mr Deepak Verma,
or the alleged complaint which was already made to the Bar Council of Delhi
against Ms Seema Sapra.
The opening paragraph of this alleged Power of
Attorney reads:
Note that this alleged Power of Attorney dated
8.12.2014 did in any case not cover the proceedings in Writ Petition Civil
No.1280/2012 instituted against GE India by Ms. Seema Sapra as it was limited
to proceedings that GE India might institute against Ms. Seema Sapra.
This power of attorney is not printed on stamp
paper issued to GE India Industrial Private Limited and it appears as if
revenue stamps have been affixed to this document to give it the appearance
of a stamped document.
The second document filed is what is described as
a board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 10/9/14 which
merely refers to another earlier alleged board resolution dated 27/9/12 and
purports to extend the validity of the latter resolution to 30/9/15. This is
reproduced below.
The third document filed is what is also
described as a board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated
26/9/13 which merely refers to an earlier board resolution dated 27/9/12 and
purports to extend the validity of the latter resolution to 30/9/14. This is
reproduced below.
So the new documents filed on 28.1.2015 were the
following:
i. An
alleged and indisputably invalid, unstamped and un-notarized Power of
Attorney executed by Tejal Patil in favor of K R Radhakrishnan which did not
apply to Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012.
ii. An
alleged Board resolution dated 26.9.2013 which merely extends an earlier
board resolution dated 27.8.012 which was not produced.
iii. An
alleged Board resolution dated 10.9.2014 which merely extends an earlier
board resolution dated 27.8.012 which was not produced.
The new alleged board resolutions dated 26.9.2013
and 10.9.2014 filed on 28.1.2015 refer to a board resolution dated 27.8.2012 which
was not produced.
The two alleged board resolutions dated 10.9.14
and 26.9.2013 merely refer to an earlier alleged resolution dated 27.9.12 and
purport to extend the latter’s validity, which itself has not been produced
and whose contents are therefore unknown. So we do not know for what purpose
if any, was K Radhakrishnan sought to be appointedas attorney of GE India Industrial
Private Limited by the alleged board resolution dated 27.9.2012. The
failure to produce this alleged board resolution dated 27/9/12 can only mean
that no such resolution exists or if it does exist, it is irrelevant.
There is another very important fact that
establishes the fraud committed on the Delhi High Court. The Tejal Patil POA
dated 8/12/2014 and the two board resolutions dated 10.9.14 and 26.9.2013
read together refer back to an earlier alleged resolution dated 27.9.12 for
the alleged authority granted by the GE India Industrial Private Limited for
the execution of a power of attorney in favor of K R Radhakrishnan.
However, the document filed by NanjuGanpathy
before the Delhi High Court on 19/10/2012 pursuant to a court direction was a
copy of the alleged copy of the purported board resolution dated 7 May 2012
of GE India Industrial Private Limited. Why was the alleged board resolution
dated 27.9.12 not filed in 2012?
So in 2012, NanjuGanpathy claimed before the
Delhi High Court that the board resolution of GE India Industrial Private
Limited authorizing the execution of the Power of Attorney in favor of K R
Radhakrishnan was dated 7 May 2012 and this was filed in Court on 19/10/2012.
It was then admitted in January 2013 on affidavit that a power of attorney
envisaged by this board resolution was never executed. Next it was stated
that a Board Resolution dated 17/12/2012 doubling also as a power of attorney
was the document that authorized K R Radhakrishnan to act as the authorized
signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited. A copy of this document was
also filed.
But in 2015, the authority for the purported
Tejal Patil Power of Attorney (unstamped and un-notarized) produced for GE
India Industrial Private Limited is stated to be a board resolution dated
27/9/2012 and this board resolution is not produced.
The fraud played on the Delhi High Court could
not be more clearly established than in this case.
The fraud played on the Delhi High Court by the
impersonator K Radhakrishnan falsely claiming to be the authorised signatory
of GE India stands further exposed and established even by the last desperate
attempt to file further fraudulent and irrelevant alleged authority documents
on record behind the back of the petitioner on 28.1.2015.
A summary of the various authority documents
which Advocate NanjuGanpathy produced for K R Radhakrishnan in respect of GE
India Industrial Private Limited establishes the fraud beyond doubt.
|
19.
It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a
legal entity or a company in court proceedings without being duly authorised in
accordance with law and without producing such duly executed authority
documents. It is also basic and settled law that no lawyer can represent a
party in court proceedings without placing on the record a vakalatnama in his
favor duly executed by such party or by its duly authorised signatory.
20.
No Court has the power or discretion to allow a company to be represented
in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and
sufficient authority documents, has failed to establish his authority to
represent the company, and who has produced invalid, false, forged and
fabricated authority documents. The Court also has no power or discretion to
permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and
valid vakalatnama.
21.
The judgment was issued in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 by the
Bench of Judge Valmiki and Judge P.S. Teji on 3.3.2015 wrongfully dismissed the
petition as infructuous.
22.
This judgment also contained the following statement in paragraph 19 -
“In
addition to the above applications there are various other applications filed
by the petitioner effectively alleging that the lawyers of respondents no.1,6
and 7 and the attorney empowered by the Board’s resolutions of respondent nos.
1,6 and 7 have no right to represent these respondents though there have been
filed on record the vakalatnamas, the power of attorneys by GE companies in
favour of their officers, notifications and copies of the resolutions of the GE
companies authorizing their officers to conduct the present and other
litigations initiated by the present petitioner. These applications are as
under:-“
23.
The judgement then proceeded to merely reproduce the prayer clauses of
CM 18642/2012, 19370/2012, 19683/2012, 522/2013, 10483/2013, CM 1882/2015.
24.
This then is how the Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge
P.S. Teji have dealt with the applications pointing out that the authority
documents filed for the General Electric respondents were invalid. Instead of
hearing and deciding these 9 pending applications on merits, this Bench
prevented the petitioner from arguing these issues, reserved judgment without a
hearing, did not accord any hearing on the applications, and in its judgment
failed to deal with the submissions of the petitioner, and with the material
and evidence on record. It further included the statement in paragraph 19 which
conveys the incorrect impression as if this issue was examined by the court and
as if the petitioner’s applications were meritless. Note that this paragraph in
the judgment does not examine the submissions of the petitioner on these
authority documents in her 9 pending applications nor does it examine whether
these authority documents filed were invalid, defective, fraudulent or
irrelevant as the petitioner had contended and as elaborated hereinabove; instead
the paragraph merely records that ‘authority documents’ were filed. Without hearing
the petitioner and without even referring to her submissions, paragraph 19 of
the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012
wrongly conveys the impression that K R Radhakrishnan was duly authorised to
represent the three General Electric respondents and that NanjuGanpathy was
authorized to appear as lawyer for the
General Electric respondents.
25.
Admittedly, the alleged authority documents filed in Delhi High Court Writ
Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 for General Electric Company had expired and
ceased to be valid on 29 April 2014.
26.
Admittedly, the alleged authority documents filed in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 for GE Global Sourcing
India Private Limited had expired and ceased to be valid on 17 December 2014.
27.
Admittedly the alleged authority documents filed in Delhi High Court
Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 for GE India Industrial Private Limited were
inconsistent with each other and therefore clearly pointing to a fraud.
28.
The petitioner also submits that it is settled law that a power of
attorney holder cannot depose or provide evidence on behalf of the principal.
29.
All the applications filed by the petitioner setting out the above
objections to the authority documents for K R Radhakrishnan and the vakalatnama
for Advocate NanjuGanpathy were simply adjourned by several Delhi High Court
Benches and were never considered or taken up for hearing in the three years
during which Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 remained pending in the Delhi
High Court.
30.
The appellant seeks to place the annexed documents on the court record before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as they establish essential facts relevant
to the hearing of the present appeal and to the general administration of
justice. The appellant is a whistle-blower who has exposed corruption, fraud,
forgery and bribery by General Electric Company in connection with the Indian
Railways’ diesel locomotive factory Project at Marhowra which has been awarded
to General Electric Company. These documents show that a criminal conspiracy
was put into effect to sabotage the hearing of the appellant’s whistle-blower
and right to life petition before the Delhi High Court, Writ Petition Civil No.
1280/2012, by committing a fraud on the Delhi High Court in connection with the
representation of General Electric Company and its two subsidiaries, GE India
Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited.
31.
There are other relevant facts in connection with this criminal
conspiracy that resulted in K R Radhakrishnan unlawfully and fraudulently
impersonating as General Electric Company’s authorized signatory before the
Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. These will also be
placed before this Hon’ble Court.
32.
The criminal conspiracy and the fraud committed on the Delhi High Court
in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 established by the attached documents is a
clear reason for the continued threat to life faced by the whistle-blower/
appellant. The Delhi High Court Bench that disposed of Writ Petition Civil No.
1280/2012 did not permit the petitioner to argue on these issues and this
fraud, perjury, forgery and unlawful impersonation before the Delhi High Court
was covered up as a result of the judgment issued in WP Civil 1280/2012 which
is silent on these issues. These and other false authority documents were used
to facilitate the filing of false, perjurious and unauthorized affidavits for
General Electric Company in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
33.
The appellant is being poisoned and is being deliberately forced to
remain homeless. Her right to work and earn a livelihood is being deliberately
obstructed. She is being poisoned and hounded daily. She is being compelled to literally beg
lawyers for money to survive. The State authorities including intelligence and
police agencies are complicit in targeting the appellant. The appellant’s life
is in grave and immediate danger, including because of the criminal conspiracy
disclosed by the attached documents read along with the memo of appeal.
34.
The appellant’s life is in grave danger because of this and the other
frauds and corruption she exposed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
35.
The consequences of this particular fraud are serious for and implicate current
and former employees of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private
Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited (including their former
and current in-house lawyers), and for current and former lawyers of the
law-firm AZB & Partners including Ms Zia Mody, the daughter of lawyer and
former Attorney General Mr Soli Sorabjee who had threatened the petitioner in
February/ March 2011 with physical harm and told her not to pursue her
whistle-blower corruption complaints against General Electric Company and had
threatened her saying that her health would be destroyed and that she would
never be allowed to work again. These persons will end up in prison and some of
them will end up disbarred from the practice of law. Lawyers from the US law
firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher are also involved in this fraud.
36.
This fraud alone will also result in General Electric getting
disqualified and blacklisted from the diesel locomotive project at Marhowra and
from all other Government of India Projects.
37.
This fraud alone is enough reason for the ongoing threat to the life of
the appellant-whistle-blower-advocate and the attempts to murder or incapacitate
her.
38.
The Appellant continues to be poisoned again. Highly poisonous chemical
fumes and gases including anesthetic agents, chemical neurotoxins,
organophosphates, nerve agents, acidic chemical fumes and highly poisonous
pesticides are being released in very large quantities into her hotel room.
There is an ongoing conspiracy and attempt to murder the appellant. The
Appellant relies upon her complaints being emailed to the Police and
communicated through her blog and through Twitter.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to allow this Applicationand:-
(i)
To permit the appellant to place on record the attached documents
enumerated in paragraphs10, 11, and 12 of the present application as these are
the fraudulent, invalid and forged authority documents filed before the Delhi
High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 on behalf of General Electric
Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India
Private Limited;
(ii)
To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT/ PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY
BOUND, EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
SEEMA SAPRA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
DRAWN ON:9/08/2018
FILED ON: 9/08/2018
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL DIARY NO. 10342 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL DIARY NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEE*MA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, aged 46 years, D/o Late A. R. Sapra, presently homeless
in New Delhi, do hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:
1. That I am the Appellant/ Petitioner and am familiar with the facts
and circumstances of the case and am competent and authorized to swear this
Affidavit.
2. That I have drafted, read and understood the accompanying Application
to bring on record the forged, invalid and fraudulent authority documents filed
in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 for General
Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing
India Private Limited and I state that the contents of the application are
based on my personal knowledge and on other sources which I believe to be true
and correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the aboveAffidavit
are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed there from.
Verified at New Delhi on this 9thday of August2018.
DEPONENT
No comments:
Post a Comment