fees for orders of J Rajive Bhalla, High Court, Chandigarh filed march 14th, 2011

My Complaint against high Court Judge;
On 31^st of May we all read in The tribune an incident wherein a litigant got in court room of Rajive Bhalla, Judge, High Court, Chandigarh and made a complaint/ statement regarding graft / corruption. The gentleman was client of Mr Sisodia a known lawyer of fair standing at the bar. The Litigant said in open Court that he had paid 34 lacs to his lawyer for onward payment to Rajive Bhalla, Judge, High Court for favorable order. This was 3rd known incident in Court room of Rajive Bhalla, Judge, High Court.  http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120531/punjab.htm#19

There was another incident in early 2011, wherein another litigant had got up in court room of Rajive Bhalla, Judge, High Court and made a complaint / statement about graft / corruption. He also said that He had paid lacs of Rupees to his lawyer for onward payment to judge for favorable order and if amount was less he can pay more. The gentleman was client of Mr Ahluwalia a known lawyer of fair standing at the bar.

The incident published in “The Tribune” on 31^st may was in fact 3^rd known incident involving Rajive Bhalla, Judge, High Court. 2nd incident is reproduced below by way of the text of Judicial record involving Rajive Bhalla, Judge, High Court where he was asked to recuse himself from a matter and he was told not to accept briefs in his chambers. Any one can obtain certified copy of Company Application 167 of 2011 decided on 1.4.2011 text of which is as under;-

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Company Misc Application 167 of 2011 in IOIN in CP 96 of 1997

Altos India Ltd                     Petitioner

Versus              

Dadan Bhai & Ors                Respondent

Application for placing on record written submissions On issues raised on 11.3.2011 and motion for recusal.

Respectfully showeth;

1.     The court raised certain issues on 11.3.2011 with respect to letters written to and about Sh D P Ojha. Written submissions are enclosed.

2.     Prayer is also made that this court recuse itself from hearing the above matter for the reasons stated in Written submissions.

It is therefore prayed that Written submissions about issues raised by the court be perused / taken on record (If they have any relevance to the case) and for the reasons stated therein the Court of Mr Justice Rajiv Bhalla recuse itself from hearing the matter.

Chandigarh                K D Aggarwal

Date; March 14, 2011  Applicant

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Company Misc Application 167 of 2011 In IOIN in CP 96 of 1997

Altos India Ltd                           Petitioner

Versus              

Dadan Bhai & Ors                      Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON ISSUES RAISED BY COURT ON 11-3-2011

Respectfully Showeth:-

1.     On 11-3-2011 when the matter came up, the court wanted to know the reply of applicant about;

A)     Complaints to Sh D P Ojha regarding illegal payment of about Rs 1.00 crores being made by him to Industrial security against % gratification to him.

B)     Complaint of corruption against D P Ojha to Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate affairs regarding payment to Industrial Security.

C)     RTI applications.

The court observed that copies of all above documents in bunch are with court.

2.     The court was of the opinion that all the above letters are because of impugned order and applicant should not have written any letters against D P Ojha, an employee of Ministry of Corporate affairs New Delhi who is presently OL but should have approached the Judge in Chambers. The court also observed that applicant appears to be starved and in fact a complaint should be made against him to Bar Council.

3.     Nothing can be more further from the truth. A perusal of the record will show the first letter against illegal payment to Industrial security being made by D P Ojha against the express orders of the Court was by my letter Dt 20-11-2010 three months before the impugned order. The said complaint also mentioned that % commission is being charged By D P Ojha in name of Regional Director and secretary of MCA. OL has stated that my letter Dt 20-11-2010 delivered to him on 20-11-2010 was because of impugned order Dt 3-2-2011 passed after three months belies common sense. How my letter of 20-11-2010 can be based on something which happened on after three months on 3/12-2-2011. Above letter was followed by letter Dt 7-1-2011 again one month before impugned order Dt 3-2-2011 received on 12-2-2011.

4.     Same is the contention in response to observations at ‘B’, since my letter to Ministry of Corporate Affairs is verbatim copies of my letters Dt 20-11-2010 / 7-1-2011. Only additional para is w.r.t. to Altos India Ltd.

5.     It is the belief of applicant that if the executive officer is honestly doing its job and its orders suffers from errors of law than judicial review is the ONLY proper remedy, However it is also true that if executive orders are not bona fide and actuated by a b c d, then judicial review alone is not sufficient but matter should also be brought to the notice of appropriate authorities. That is why there is hierarchy and vigilance sections in each department of executive.  Sh Vishal Aggarwal advocate personally hand delivered letter DT 22-12-2010 on 22-12-2010 pointing out that Order Dt 1-9-2005 is ten times more powerful via concurrence than two lines in Form 58. However the contentions in said letter are maliciously silent in the impugned order. The demand was made and rightly informed to higher authorities.

6.     It has repeatedly been told to Mr Tewari, CPIO, O/O OL Ministry of Corporate affairs, New Delhi that if DP ojha is stealing from the properties and assets of companies in liquidation than he may decline to give me any information, however if they have nothing to hide and doing their jobs honestly they can simply put the asked files for inspection and give copies thereof. Mr Tewari has told me that Sh D P Ojha has forbade them to give me any information under RTI unsaid on the ground that information is prejudicial to the personal interests of D P Ojha. There are instructions from the employer of Sh D P Ojha to give all information sought under RTI, hence his denial of information has been brought to the notice of his employer.

7.     An employee of the liquidation section has been seeking use of Mercedes Benz car of the applicant for travel to out of station which has always been declined. He was always told that if some mishap occurs even a small repair costs a few lacs. If applicant informs this to company judge, he is complaining, if he does not; then why not before a false office note was put up. Seeking information on whether any office note was put up by staff on administrative side in case of Altos India Ltd is to know what facts have been told and what not. If they are honest what prevents them to show me my concerned file. That is why we exchange pleadings in law.

8.     The matters raised by the court are not the result of impugned order as they predate the impugned order. The matters are between Sh D P Ojha and his employer the Ministry of corporate affairs, New Delhi. Mr D P Ojha is very resourceful and highly connected person and will obtain appropriate orders from his Ministry also. He does not need a chaperon.

9.     I have been given unsolicited advice that I should file suit for recovery against Industrial security which has filed an affidavit refusing to accept terms and conditions of their empanelment with High Court. Once their affidavit was brought on record on administrative side by OL, may be for another reasons, Judicial course would have been to depanel them. Industrial security is very rich company based on its ‘connections’ and have sufficient resources and can hire most competent advocates who are ‘officially advocates’.

10.    The court also observed that applicant appears to be starved and in fact a complaint should be made against him to Bar Council. I refuse to dignify the abuses by responding t them. The settled fee should have been paid without having to ask for it. Regarding Complaint to Bar council, applicant has never certified anything under Chartered Accountants Act or practiced as such. There are people who have been on the CAs panel of OL and also appeared on this side as advocates wearing robes, but no threats were given to them. But then for Justice Rajive Bhalla rules are different for me a common man.

11.    The reply is being filed to put the record straight as lies have been told to Sh Rajiv Bhalla in chambers by vested interests. Mr Justice Rajiv Bhalla has made uncalled for comments, has used intemperate/ abusive language / gave verbal threats against applicant and has shown extreme bias and prejudice against the applicant and in favor of respondent D P Ojha based on lies told to him in Chambers by Sh D P Ojha and has asked me to appear before him on 16-3-2011. People are not exhibits. There are no Exhibits.

In the circumstances, neither me nor my counsel can appear on 16-3-2011 to prevent repeat of happenings in IFCI Vs AVI Autos. The Court of Sh Rajiv Bhalla is requested to recuse itself from the case.

KD Aggarwal, Advocate

Applicant."

Kapil Dev Aggarwal

For the oath of Office of Justice Rajive Bhalla please click here 

Oath taken by Justice Rajive Bhalla.