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.
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 31st, 2011 and adjourns the case week later for arguments for
April 7th, 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 3/4th of value of the “amount outstanding as on a
record date” with 3/4th 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 3/4th
in value of the “amount outstanding”,
to 3/4th 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 31st, 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 7th, 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
3/4th 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 3/4th 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 3/4th 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 ;-
“3/4th 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. 3/4TH
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 1st respondent
dismissing the objections of Petitioners.”
Two lies which are incorporated in the
above statement are;-
i)
Petitioners have concealed order of 1st respondent.
ii)
That order of 1st 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 1st respondent P/15.
1st 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. 3rd 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 4th respondent. Parliament in its collective has not
authorised 3rd 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. 4th
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.
