J Surya Kant favors kith and kin,violates his oath complaint 3rd September, 2011

My Complaint against high Court Judge;
Following is a public record and anyone can obtain copy of it under RTI by giving reference no SC/PIL (E) JJ/CC/ 15 / 2011 19.09.2011 complaint dated 03.09.2011 filed by Kapil Dev Aggarwal against Surya Kant, Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court.

 J Surya Kant, High Court, Judge took my complaint to Public Forum when he filed criminal contempt against me bearing no 1 of 2012, for filing the following Complaint against him for favoring Sons and wards of Judges in his Judgement. The following complaint is already part of public record so made by Justice Surya Kant. From peon to a Judge every employee of High Court is a Public Servant and is accountable to public. let YOU - the public be the Judge and not another brother can or should Judge him.Click here for my response to his complaint.

Oath Taken by a High Court Judge.

To,

Registrar, Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi.

Ref;  Your letter No. SC/PIL (E) JJ/CC/15/2011 Dated 19.9.2011

Dear Sir,

Reference your letter noted above, please find enclosed affidavit.

KD Aggarwal

Advocate.

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

          No. SC/PIL (E) JJ/CC/15/2011

In the matter of ;

Impeachment / transfer of Justice Surya Kant of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Affidavit of Kapil Dev Aggarwal, advocate, S/O Sh Raj Kumar Aggarwal, age 44 years resident of 1366, sector 40-B, Chandigarh

I the above named deponent do solemnly affirm and declare;-

1.     That no person can hold any constitutional office without taking Oath to uphold constitution of India as by law established. However it is being seen that members of Higher Judiciary are increasingly violating their oath of office with impunity and wantonly passing orders to favor sons /wards of their present or former colleague, relatives etc. Judiciary has become “Family Private Ltd”. Present complaint is one such instance (out of hundreds everyday), where by a sitting high Court Justice Surya Kant of Punjab and Haryana High Court has violated his oath of Office to give pecuniary advantage to son of a former Judge namely Arun palli s/o Justice PK Palli (retd). He vacates the stay on march 31^st, 2011 and adjourns the case week later for arguments for April 7^th, 2011 which proves his malafides. The details of corruption and violation of oath of office by Justice Surya Kant are as under;-

2.     That Justice Surya Kant while deciding CWP 10434 of 2010 violated his oath of Office when by his order he amended Section 13(9) of the Securitization Act by replacing the word 3/4^th of value of the “amount outstanding as on a record date” with 3/4^th of ‘Charge’ and still further amending section 2 zc, 13(4) & 13(9) of the Securitization Act by replacing the word “secured asset” with the word “each creditor to its own individual secured asset”. Justice Surya Kant arrogated to himself the powers of Parliament of article 245 Constitution of India to write the statue. He exercised the powers of parliament out of favor and affection for Sh Arun palli Sr. advocate being  son of a former Judge  Justice PK Palli (retd).

3.             That Justice Surya Kant while deciding CWP 10434 of 2010 violated his oath of Office when by his order he amended third provisio to Section 15 of Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act 1985 by replacing the words 3/4^th in value of the “amount outstanding”, to 3/4^th of ”charge”. Justice Surya Kant arrogated to himself the powers of Parliament of article 245 Constitution of India to write the statue. He exercised the powers of parliament u/a 245 Constitution of India out of favor and affection for Sh Arun palli Sr. advocate being  son of a former Judge Justice PK Palli (retd).

4.     That Justice Surya Kant while deciding CWP 10434 of 2010 violated his oath of Office when by his order he amended section 13(2) and 17 of the Securitization by allowing Authorised Officer to take proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act. As per the per the statue, All proceedings u/s 13(4) alone are to be taken by “Authorised officer’ which are appealable. He has no jurisdiction under 13(2) which action is not appealable. By conferring Jurisdiction on Authorised Officer u/s 13(2) of Securitization Act. Justice Surya Kant arrogated to himself the powers of Parliament of article 245 Constitution of India to write the statue. He exercised the powers of parliament out of favor and affection for Sh Arun palli Sr. advocate being  son of a former Judge Justice PK Palli (retd).

5.     That Justice Surya Kant while deciding CWP 10434 of 2010 violated his oath of Office when by his order he changed the Order Dt 11.12.2006 passed by another bench by incorporating the words “agreed between the Parties’ which is not part of the Order dated 11.12.2006. CWP 3333 of 2006 was filed to challenge Notice issued by Respondent u/s 13(2) of the Act. As bank voluntarily made a statement to issue fresh Notice under the act, Petitioner was satisfied. It is no where mentioned in previous Order that if bank issues fresh Notice than Petitioner will voluntarily hand over their residential houses to Bank for sale or will have no right to challenge the same. The judge had no power to change the Order passed by another Bench. He changed facts out of favor and affection for Sh Arun palli Sr. advocate being  son of a former Judge Justice PK Palli (retd).

6.     That Justice Surya Kant while deciding CWP 10434 of 2010 violated his oath of Office when by his order he amended the facts by stating mortgage over two residential houses which fact is disputed as mentioned in Para 4 of CWP and hence was not raised in Writ Petition. The judge had no power to change the facts. He changed facts out of favor and affection for Sh Arun palli Sr. advocate being  son of a former Judge Justice PK Palli (retd).

7.     Another fact which goes to prove his malafides is that he vacates the stay (granted after hearing both the parties) on March 31^st, 2011 and apprehending change of Roster and to keep the case with himself adjourns the case for hearing arguments a week later for 7th April 7^th, 2011 a day before change of Roster on 8th April, 2011. He issues notice of application for perjury CM 5153/2011 for 15.5.2011 when case is listed before another bench but he maliciously kept the file and replaced the order of 'notice' with order of dismissal Dt 8.4.2011 on which date case was never listed.

That action is required as per law against Justice Surya Kant of Punjab and Haryana High Court or Arun Palli for crime against justice by making false statements in court to prevent rot among the judiciary, maintain independence (from their kith and kin) of Judges so that faith of people in Judiciary and the constitution is maintained.

Chandigarh

Date 26.9.2011                      Deponent

VERIFICATION;

Verified that contents of above affidavit are based on record and as well what justice Surya kant dictated in court on 7.4.2011. The contents are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part is false and nothing material I concealed.

Chandigarh

Date 26.9.2011                       Deponent

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

          No. SC/PIL (E) JJ/CC/15/2011

In the matter of ;

Impeachment / transfer of Justice Surya Kant of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Affidavit of Kapil Dev Aggarwal, advocate, S/O Sh Raj Kumar Aggarwal, age 48 years resident of 1366, sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

I, the above named deponent do solemnly affirm and declare;-

1.     That on 21.10.2011, I was present in Court of Justice Surya Kant in connection with a matter listed before him at item no 1 on Company Side. After seeing me in the court, Justice Surya Kant called me to stand at the desk of his reader and from his staff called for a letter Dt 4.6.2011 which I had written to him and stated to me;

“You have only dealt with soft judges, you do not know me.”

 I now know everything about you. I will finish your career” (When I said that Sons and wards of Judges have finished career lawyers) then he said and I quote – “You do not know me and cannot even imagine what I can do to you”

2.     I do not now remember each and every word and threats he gave me but he kept on shouting at me for quite some time. Looking at his hyper attitude and street language and threats being issued against me including violence, I said that if problem is about letter dt 4.6.2011 written by me, it was written to explain to him that his orders amounts to violation of his oath of office and Judicial misconduct. However if he wants I can apologize for letter Dt 4.6.2011 and can withdraw the same. Anyone can earn an honest labor honestly also. Thereafter he asked me to give him a signed statement. Since I had already referred the matter of his violation of oath of office to this court hence letter Dt 4.6.2011 had become redundant so I made the said statement apologizing and withdrawing letter Dt 4.6.2011 at his asking under duress as explained above and to stop him using bad words.

3.     However, I have not withdrawn my complaint to Chief Justice of India and brother judges of Supreme Court of India.

Chandigarh

Date 21.10.2011                         Deponent

VERIFICATION;

Verified that contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part is false and nothing material is concealed.

Chandigarh

Date 21.10.2011                          Deponent

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

 C.M. NO 5153 of  2011

IN CWP No 10434 of 2010.

1.      M/S Sangrur Milk Products Pvt Ltd, 8 Aggar Nagar, Sangrur through authorized signatory Sh Vipan Jindal, Director

                                                     Petitioner

VERSUS

          District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur

          And others                             …Respondents

1.      Sh B R Tripathi, Authorized officer, Canara Bank, Sangrur

2. Sh Nitish Kumar Manager,  Canara Bank, Sangrur.

                                                                    …Accused

Affidavit of Sh Vipin Jindal, Director, M/S Sangrur Milk Products Pvt Ltd, 8 Aggar nagar Sangrur.

I above deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under;-

A.      That main case is pending for 7.4.2011. On last date of hearing i.e. 31.3.2011, Sh Arun Palli senior Advocate upon instructions of the accused made several false statements in this court which is an offense punishable under section 199-200 and 209 IPC. The details are as under;-

1.      That Sh Arun Palli Senior Advocate upon instructions falsely stated ;-

“Petitioners have obtained ex-parte stay Order”

PROOF OF FALSEHOOD.

“CWP No 10434 of 2010

Present; Mr K D Aggarwal Adviocate for petitioner

Mr R S Bhatia advocate for Caveator

Inter alia contends that notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and reconstruction of financial Assets and enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 was issued. Further contends that in terms of section 13(9) of the Act, the proceedings under section 13(4) would be initiated by the secured creditors only in case 3/4^th of the secured creditors agree for such a course. Though this is seriously disputed by the counsel for the respondent bank who says that the bank had secured credit qua the working capital which will be more than 3/4^th yet this will require consideration.

Notice of motion for 27.7.2010.

Status quo in regard to possession shall be maintained till the next date of hearing, However other proceedings may continue.

                                                  Sd/-

June 03, 2010                          (Ranjit Singh) Judge

2.      That Sh Arun Palli Senior Advocate upon instructions falsely stated ;-

“Petitioners have made total misrepresentation while obtaining ex parte stay order”

PROOF OF FALSEHOOD;

Bank in para 9 and para 4 of its reply has admitted that it does not have 3/4^th of the requisite strength as defined in section 13(9) of the Securitisation Act. Bank has thus admitted in Para 9 and Para 4 that Securitisation Act does not apply in present case. The reply was drafted by previous advocate Sh R S Bhatia who is a banking Law expert and was thus aware of meaning of ‘financial asset’ defined in para 9 of the reply and secured asset defined in para 4 of the reply.

Para 9 of reply states as under;- ..”It is clear from the bare reading of the definition of ‘Financial asset’ that this means debt and receivables etc. the debt of PFC and defendant no 4 are financial assets (emphasis supplied) and it includes a debt which is secured or unsecured, secured by mortgage or charged on immobile property etc as included in the definition. .

Law does not make distinction between hundreds types of loans given under various heads nor it makes any distinction between various types of securities which are taken by the bank. All Loans whether secured or unsecured fall within definition of ‘Financial asset’

Para 4 of the reply (last four lines) ;- The present outstanding amount of the loan given by PFC is Rs 2.08 crores and the outstanding against the loan given by the canara bank is Rs 1,69,83,714.

A bare perusal of the above figures shows that debt of canara bank is less than half of total secured debt of the Company. Hence Securitisation Act does not apply in instant case in view of the bar created under section 13(9) of the Act. Hence bank is prohibited from proceeding u/s 13(4) of the Act. ‘Secured asset’ is defined in section 2 (zc) "secured asset" means the property on which security interest is created; i.e. two private residential houses allegedly claimed as such. Law makes no distinction between hundreds type of securities offered with each distinct loan. All securities are ‘secured asset’ and no single creditor can take possession of its own security for recovery thereby jeopardizing loans of other financial Institutions from the said borrower. For individual recovery bank has to approach DRT.

3.      That faced with above facts, Sh Arun Palli Senior Advocate upon instructions falsely stated ;-

“3/4^th means that 1 or 2 percent creditor cannot take action but a creditor of more than 3 or 4 percent can take action under securitisation Act”

PROOF OF FALSEHOOD

The statement belies common sense. 3/4^TH means 75% of the whole.

4.      That Sh Arun Palli Senior Advocate upon instructions falsely stated ;-

“Petitioners have concealed that a detailed considered order has been passed by 1^st respondent dismissing the objections of Petitioners.”

Two lies which are incorporated in the above statement are;-

i)        Petitioners have concealed order of 1^st respondent.

ii)       That order of 1^st respondent is considered order.

PROOF OF FALSEHOOD

i)        The said order is attached as P/15 page 91-92

ii)       The order states “Parties have been heard. Record has been perused. Order regarding possession has been separately issued.

                       SD/- District Magistrate Sangrur “ 

Objections are P/11 at page 62, Order of BIFR is P/4 at page 22 relevant stay qua recovery proceedings by Canara bank is at para 12 page 29. It is specifically Pleaded;-

“..it is informed that vide Order Dt 1.4.2010, Board of Industrial & Financial reconstruction had declared the company as sick and brought it under the protection of Section 22 of SICA. The board in Para 12 of its order had also specifically stayed recovery proceedings by all secured creditors. Copy of the Order is enclosed as A/1.

3.         “22.     Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc

(1)       Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding-up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans, or advance granted to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority.”

Statutory stay u/s 22 of SICA- Not referred - Not considered.

Stay on recovery by Canara bank - Not referred - Not considered.

There is no reference to the objections of Petitioners -let alone any consideration on the same. Yet the counsel makes statement at bar Considered Order has been passed dismissing objections of Petitioners which has been concealed by them. Such inconsiderate order is non est in law and hence prayer is made for quashing the order of 1^st respondent P/15.  1^st respondent has not filed any reply so far.

At this point it is relevant to reproduce provisio to section 15 SICA

“Provided also that on or after the commencement of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002, where a reference is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, such reference shall abate if the secured creditors, representing not less than three-fourth in value of the amount outstanding against financial assistance disbursed to the borrower of such secured creditors, have taken any measures to recover their secured debt under sub-section (4) of section 13 of that Act.]

If there is consent of 75% or more of secured creditors than Securitization Act will prevail and SICA will abate. If there is less than 75% than SICA will prevail and securitization Act will NOT APPLY.

Canara bank is approx 45% only (Supra).

4.      That Sh Arun Palli Senior Advocate upon instructions falsely stated ;- “Vide P/2, petitioners have agreed for bank to take possession of properties exclusively mortgaged with the bank.”

PROOF OF MIS-REPRESENTATION;

i)        Petitioners had challenged Notice u/s 13(2) of securitisation Act. In order to avoid adverse order, Bank voluntarily agreed to issue fresh Notice under the Act (emphasis supplied). Everything else said by Bank is irrelevant , superficial and not agreed upon as provisions of the Act will apply.

ii)       Fresh notice u/s 13(2) is not as per provisions of the Act. 3^rd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue Notice u/s 13(2) of the act. Section 13(2) of the Act is as under:-

“13(2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub section-(4).”

iii)      Notice u/s 13(2) can only be issued by 4^th respondent. Parliament in its collective has not authorised 3^rd respondent to issue notice u/s 13(2) of the Act. Secured creditor and Authorised Officer are two different and distinct persons having different & distinct duties under SARFEASI. 4^th respondent representing/secured creditor is scale three officer. Authorised officer has to perform various functions u/s 13(4) in consultation with secured creditor reference is being made to rule 8(5) and 9(2) of SARFASEI Rules as under;-

8. Sale of immovable secured assets

(5) Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-rule (1)

of rule 9, the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an

approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by any of the following methods:--

9. Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.

(2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered

the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor:

PROVIDED FURTHER that if the authorised officer fails to obtain a price

higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the

secured creditor effect the sale at such price.

The present notice is issued by Authorised Officer instead of secured creditor as per rules and is void ab initio. The accused have thus violated their undertaking / statement made to court vide P/2.

The accused have made false statements / declarations which have been made at bar by their counsel on their behalf & instance. All the above false statements were treated as evidence of truth thereby non suiting the petitioners. The Accused with intent to commit fraud with Public Justice have induced their counsel to make false statements on their behalf. Hence accused have committed offences punishable u/s 199-200 and 209 of IPC.

Chandigarh

Date 04.04.2011                             Deponent

VERIFICATION;

          Verified that statements attributed to Sh Arun Palli were made by him and I heard the same. The proof of falsehood is based on facts / records of the case. Legal submissions are based on legal advice and believed to be true.

Chandigarh

Date 04.04.2011                           Deponent

After the above complaint, Justice Surya Kant filed counter complaint against me titled criminal contempt 1 of 2012. my reply can be seen here Reply Affidavit of Kapil Dev Aggarwal.

The said complaint is perjury an offense against Court and Justice.
Perjury by High Court Judge.

3rd complaint against J Surya kant sub; Embezelement of public funds and public property.

Employees cases needs seprate small cause courts.

To,                                                                                                 February 7th, 2013

Honorable the Chief Justice,

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

SUB;   Suggestions to reduce pendency. 
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Armed force tribunal (AFT), Central Govt Industrial Tribunals and State Govt labor Tribunals have no pendency. I give following suggestions for reducing pendency of cases in Hon’ble High Court.

1.       Setting up of Punjab Administrative Tribunals (PAT) and Haryana Administrative Tribunals (HAT). All service cases of employees of these two states be transferred to PAT and HAT. This will mean shifting of 20,000 to 40,000 cases apart from providing employment to many. These cases will be decided early as in case of CAT and AFT primarily due to specialization.

2.         All writs of employees of state, central government undertakings, semi government undertakings or PSUs be also transferred to CAT, PAT and HAT. All writs arising out of Central or state labor tribunals and by employees of High Court be also transferred to CAT, PAT & HAT.

3.         Even otherwise, it is highly illogical and preposterous that a civil Judge is handling cases of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, Sessions courts are handling cases of heinous nature like murder etc but cases like adverse remarks, transfer, chargesheet, promotion of employees are burdened on High Courts. This is adversely affecting criminal justice system when serious cases like criminal appeals, revisions etc are pending for long.

4.         Appeals arising out of these CAT, AFT, PAT & HAT be heard by National Administrative Tribunals headed by retired SC Judges for which separate suggestion is being sent to Ministry of Law. 

5.         The function of High Courts is to deal with cases involving “Law” i.e. cases arising out of “Acts” and to answer questions of law. And the work and function of H’ High Courts be restricted to such cases at least in civil matters.  

                                                                                                           KD Aggarwal

Advocate.

What I Did not Know !

Dear Brethren,

A series of articles related to my life.

Following is part of Public Records contained in FAO 424 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal 711 of 2001 in High court of New Delhi;

Following is part of Public Records; 

I was married to Rajni, daughter of Jagan Nath, partner B K Jagan & Co/ Jagan hardware, Sector 28, Chandigarh in April 1993. She was under treatment for infertility as even after two years of marriage she had not conceived. On 12^th August 1995, Dr Mangla Dogra Gynecologist stated that she is not ovulating. Within a month thereafter, when I came home from work my house was empty and locker was also empty stealing about Rs 5.00 crores worth of my family property Calculations. Click here for Dates and Events.

Locker contained almost Rs 30.00 lacs of ancestral gold of my parents now worth almost Rs 5.00 Crores link. At that time her brother and father were heavily in debt. Rajni remained tense about indebtedness of her brother and parents Click here for Brother's Parents Indebtedness. 

After the incident of my wife stealing more than 30.00 lacs of my ancestral jewelry and IVPs which has present market value of above Rs 5.00 Crores or 50 million, (click here for Proof of Theft by Rajni her Brother and Father), a client of my father a senior bank officer told us that since my marriage had been already fixed (we had invited them at marriage) only she did not tell us about past history of my in-laws.

She further told us that my wife's three elder sisters are also divorcees and they had also stolen property and money from their respective in-laws to make money for their father and mother who appear to be always perpetually in debt. My marriage had been done through Newspaper.

She then filed for divorce leveling all sorts of click here for false Allegations. Since the behavior of my wife and in–laws could not be satisfactorily explained, I conducted further inquiries. The first address was given by the said bank officer.

PAST HISTORY:

It transpired that the 5^th Elder Sister of the Rajni, namely Anuradha was once married to Rajan Garg S/o Sat Mohan Garg, Gali No.5, Ram Ganj Moga.  Rajan Garg loved his wife. At that time also the father and Brother of the Rajni had recently started a new business in the name and style of Jagan Gopala and company. However the business required huge cash to overcome the financially problems of the firm Jagan Gopala & Co.   Hence Anuradha 5^th elder Sister of the my wife (in the company of her Parents) removed all household goods, cash and Jewellery reportedly worth Rs. 7-8 lacs at that time lying in  the  house  of Rajan garg - Ist husband of Anuradha  and  then  started making  false allegations of cruelty.  At that time Anuradha had initially taken two lockers in two different cities to store the cash and jewellery clandestinely removed by her and her Parents from her first marriage. She took locker no.415, State Bank of India, Sector 8, Panchkula and Locker no.13, Haryana State Cooperative Bank, Sector 28, Chandigarh. It was later sold off by her father, mother and brother and put in business of her parents to help them ward off bankruptcy at that time.

Further, I was informed that 4^th elder sister namely Babli was married to Anil Goel of Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Anil Goel also loved his wife Babli and believed her. Babli also told him that her family was poor and would become bankrupt and would fall in the eyes of her relations if Anil did not help her. She also talked of family committing suicide. Sh Anil Goel pledged his property and took loan for her father to help them pay the loan taken by her parents for their current house. After taking the loan she left him and started making false allegations of cruelty against him and her aged mother. After looting his money, she and her parents trapped him in criminal cases. She and her parents then took further money to withdraw false criminal cases filed by them.

  

Further investigations also indicated that 2^nd elder Sister of my ex-wife Mridu along with her parents had also fleeced her first husband and clandestinely removed all cash, Jewellery  and household goods from his house. Disgusted with the behavior of Mridu and her parents (my in-laws), He had left for Haridwar and his whereabouts are not known for last 26 years.  However, documentary evidence of this fact is also available. Mridu had also taken a locker jointly with her mother at that time also to store the cash and jewellery, clandestinely brought by her and her parents from her in-laws house. The same locker No 13 Haryana State Cooperative Bank, Sector-28, Chandigarh on was first taken in the name of Mridhu and her mother on 3.12.1983 though she was first married in 1976. There is no other valid reason for a lady to take a locker with her mother seven years after her marriage. The purpose is obviously clandestine.

I can only assume that parents of her first elder sister and third elder sister were not actually rich though. Otherwise they would also have been looted by Jagan Nath of B K Jagan and company, sector 28, Chandigarh, poor brother of Om Prakash of D P Jagan & Company, sector 28, Chandigarh. When Jagan Nath had come to Chandigarh. He along with his wife and seven children used to live in one room mumty (1-2 room at top floor reserved for servants of house) and with shared toilet with other tenant. When asked as her medical treatment of medical problems since her birth. Rajni under oath admitted; "Only my husband accompanied me whenever I went to the doctor for treatment for infertility. The expenses in that behalf was also met only by my husband”. 

Her lawyer used to inform my lawyer in advance the orders which will be passed by the concerned judge. (He did it, so that I should stop contesting the case and to tell that facts and law have no value in Courts). He said and I quote; "Kapil is a fool. First he allowed his wife to cheat him and now he believes that Judgments will be based on facts and law. He is a fool. Tell me next order will be ...". I used to laugh thinking that judges pass the orders based on facts and law. I was wrong. Every time the same orders were passed as had already been conveyed to us. On or about 20th September 1998, We were told of exact order on her 3rd maintenance application even when application had not even been argued. The same day, I went to inspecting Judge Justice HS Brar and told him of the exact order which will be passed on an application which is yet to be argued. He did not believe me and said I was prejudging the issue. However, that was not to be. On 30th september, 1998, the same order was passed by SS Lamba ADJ. So, I informed the inspecting judge. He did not believe me. He came for inspection the next day and when he saw the order which I had told him several days earlier, he withdrew the case from SS lamba and sent it to another Judge. I did not get justice in my case as only remedy against a corrupt judgment is to file appeal. (Click here for What happened in Appeal). 

After this I tracked the telephone calls of my in-laws and found that before every date of hearing a telephone call went from my in-laws to Mangat Ram Garg, chairman department of laws, Punjabi University, Patiala and instantly Mangat Ram Garg telephoned Balram Gupta, Chairman Department of laws Punjab University, Chandigarh. Balram Gupta in turn then called B B parson, Now District Judge Gurgoan, who would then call concerned Judge.

I later came to know that Mangat Ram Garg, Balram Gupta and BB parson are all known touts, who supply Judges albeit their orders on a platter for lifelong pleasure for litigants unlike prostitutes who give pleasure for only half an hour or less.

Click here for;

Dates and Events.

In-laws Indebtedness.

Proof of Theft by Rajni her Brother and Father

False Allegations to Loot Money

What happened in Appeal.

How her father lied 

How her brother lied 

How Brij her creditor lied to protect his investment. 

Kapil Dev Aggarwal