laws needs to be amended.

Honorable Minister of Law,

4^th floor, ‘A’ Wing, Shastri Bhawan,

New Delhi.

Sub; Suggestions for early disposal of Court Cases.

Dear Sir,

Problems;

On account of delays People have lost faith in Courts leading to anarchism where only the corrupt and connected take the benefit and honesty suffers.

Solution;

1.     All cases to first filed before mediation cells/pre hearing and only upon their certificate should cases be listed before regular courts.

2.     Amendment of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Post dated cheques be excluded as they are not for payment of existing debt.

3.     Amendment of Hindu Marriage Act to incorporate validity of pre nuptial contract. Muslims have no marriage disputes regarding maintenance or dowry on account of “mehar”. Hence in cases relating to maintenance u/s 24-25 HMA, pre nuptial contract should be allowed as legal alongwith 10% annual increase from date of contract to date of payment.

b)     Separate chapter be added “Rights and duties of husband and wife”

c)     All gifts given to either party be compulsorily written down and witnessed by both sides including one person of eminence or a lawyer. no gifts to girl or boy of jewelry and clothes by either side. All common expenses to be shared 50:50.

4.     Amendment of Rent Act;  In case of personal necessity, If landlord gives bank guarantee of an amount of 20% of collectorate value of property under tenancy or 5 years market rent accompanied by an undertaking that he will not change possession of property for ten years, he should get instant order of possession in his favor and in case he violates his undertaking than bank guarantee be encashed in favor of ex-tenant or property be sold and 20% be given to ex-tenant.  6 months be given to tenant to vacate property. Undertaking is treated as statutory charge on property with corresponding entry in revenue records.

Date; 25.04.2013                          KD Aggarwal

                                                  Advocate.

What happened in Appeal.

9.1.96 Rajni files application for maintenance and falsely states "She has no movable or immovable property and has no source of income", even though Rajni is an income tax Assessee.

       

1.6.96 Rajni files complaint u/s 125 CrL.P.C.  for maintenance and again falsely states that she has no income or property for her maintenance.

       

14.6.96 In reply, I state that Rajni is an income tax Assessee having filed her Income Tax Returns regularly from A.Y. 1990-91 onwards upto the date of filing of present petition.hence there is no case for maintainance.

3.8.96       Rajni unconditionally gives up her claim for maintenance and litigation expenses by moving an application for withdrawal of her application for maintenance.  Her statement is recorded and application for maintenance is dismissed.        

10.8.96: Her complaint u/s 125 CrL P.C. seeking maintenance is also dismissed.

11.11.97   Application for appointment of Local commissioner to prepare Inventory of Joint Locker (which application goes to the root of the matter) is dismissed.

22.8.98 Rajni files 3^rd application for maintenance (2^nd in this court)and again falsely states that She has no income and is unable to bear the expenses of proceedings. 

       

12.9.98 I detailed reply that second application for maintenance is barred by Res-judicata and states that Rajni’s:

(i) Income for assessment year 91-92 was 45,400/-.

(ii) Income for assessment year 92-93 was 41,300/-.

(iii)  Her income for assessment year 93-94 was  36,600/-

(iv)  Her income for assessment year 94-95 was   1,00,000/-.

30.9.98  S.S.Lamba ADJ grants Rs.3,500/-  to  her plus Rs.500/- to her towards car and telephone. Grants litigation expenses at Rs.12,000/ which  were unconditionally given up earlier. This is same order which Padam Kumar jain had informed my lawyer a week earlier which I in turn had informed the inspection judge the same day that is a week earlier.

i)      During course of proceedings Sh.S.S.Lamba ADJ threatened witnesses of the Respondent. Statements of the Rajni and their witnesses were twisted. Statements in favor of the Me Iwere deliberately left out. Statements of Me Iwitnesses was also not correctly recorded and/or changed. He had adopted threatening attitude. Certain private investigations were conducted and certain evidence of Connivance of said Judge with parents of Rajni through ex Chairman Deptt of laws and B B Parsoon was brought to the notice of the appropriate authority. After appreciation of evidence matter was withdrawn from the Court of Sh.S.S.Lamba. His order dated 30.09.98 has following unique features.

A.     Res-judicata is given go bye.

A      Income Tax assessee is held to be unable to maintain her self.

B      Income is being divided 45:55 in favour of wife.

D      Maintenance Litigation Expenses are being granted when the same were voluntarily given up earlier.

E      My income is assumed even though my IT Returns were available.

       

3.10.1998  Case is withdrawn from his court.

       

Oct 98 I file civil revision No.4298/98. 

Lunch Time 21.12.98. In Chamber of Hon'ble Judge  

asked me to agree for 13B. I decline. Thereafter appeal is disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court upon my "consent" that I agree to pay litigation expenses and maintenance as per order dated 30.9.1998 at Rs.12,000/- and  Rs.3,500/  No consent was ever given by me either orally or in writing at any point of time. 

       

Post Lunch Time 21.12.98.

Court was requested that there being no consent so "consent" be not stated. I was told that since order stands dictated (not signed), I should file an application.

       

22.12.98. Counsel moved an application alongwith my affidavit that no consent was sought or given.  Relevent para is reproduced hereunder:

"Para 5 That no such consent was sought or given by me. Rather there is no question of such consent being given and is contradictory to the prayer made in the present Revision Petition. This fact is also apparent from the fact that case was fully argued on 16.11.98. The fact that no consent was given was also brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court immediately after lunch through the Reader concerned as the Court had already retired and I was informed that since the order has already been dictated, I should file an application. Hence the present Application.

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the order Dated 21.12.98 may kindly be recalled and the case may be decided in accordance with law as per merits."

       

24.12.98. Court desires Senior Advocate to appear and make request. case is adjourned to 8.1.99.

       

8.1.99. Senior Advocate makes statement at Bar in support of application and states that facts are known to the Court. He requested the court to decide the case on merits. However his statement is not recorded and he is asked to file his own Affidavit. His presence is recorded in proceedings Dt. 8.1.99 However what is stated by him is not recorded and following order is passed: -

"Sh. Harbhagwan Singh Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.D.Aggarwal Advocate

Mr. Padam Jain Advocate

Relist on 11.01.99

                   Sd/ V.S. Aggarwal/ Judge."

       

9.1.99. Above facts are brought on record by way of CM 195/99 and it is stated as under: -

       

"1.  That this Hon'ble Court had observed on 24.12.98 that in case Sh. Harbhagwan Singh, Sr. Advocate would make a request even orally, the case shall be decided in accordance with law and the case was there after adjourned to 8.1.99 for the said purpose.

       

2. That, on 8.1.99 Sh.Harbhagwan Singh, Sr.  Advocate appeared in this Court and made a statement at Bar that the case may kindly be decided on merits. It was also stated by him at the Bar that the facts are quite apparent to the Court and it was again requested by Sh Harbhagwan Singh that the Court may decide the case in accordance with law on merits.

       

4.  That court has now asked Sh. Harbhagwan Singh Sr. Advocate to file his affidavit.

       

5.  That it is well established law and practice that Sr. Advocates do not make sworn statements and even the statements made by them at the Bar are recorded through their counsel.  In this view of the matter and keeping in view the dignity of the Sr. Advocate, the assisting counsel namely the applicant is filling the affidavit again which may kindly be taken on record.

       

6.  That it was observed by Sh. Harbhagwan Singh, Sr, Advocate that since he has made statement at Bar his office would not file any affidavit as the value of their affidavit is negligible in view of his own statement at the Bar.  Even otherwise at the time of the order it was dictated in the Chamber then only five were present i.e. this Hon'ble Court namely. Sh. Harbhagwan Singh Sr. Advocate, the applicant, Sh P.K. Jain advocate and his client."

       

Proceedings Dt 8.1.99 and above CM is not considered in the final order.

       

27.1.99 Hon'ble Court desires that application be amended to incorporate provisions of order 23 Rule 3 CPC which Bars Courts to pass order on the basis of agreement which are not before the court in writing and signed by parties. In view of law laid by this Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in PLR 1988 Vol.2 page 365 such agreements which are mentioned in proceedings of the court but are not before the court in writing are void.

24.2.99     Amended application is taken on record. On 21.12.98 Rajni had shed fake tears before the then Judge.  After the order was passed and when parties came out she started laughing and asked her counsel as to how was her acting. Her counsel Sh. P.K. Jain patted her and said very good.  The fact that she had merely enacted a tutored Drama was also brought to the notice of the Then Hon'ble Judge in C.M. 16027/98 for recall of the Order Dt. 21.12.98 and in Para 10 it was stated as Under.:

"That the My wife had deliberately stated incorrect facts to this Hon'ble Court in Chambers on 21.12.98. She had enacted tutored Drama with fake tears which had the desired effect."

       

23.3.99 The application for deciding the case on merits is dismissed. It is stated as under.:

“Taking up the assertion of the applicant as to whether consent to such an order has been given or not, the record reveals that the applicant was represented by a Senior advocate. He was in a position to make statement on behalf of applicant. It is not even alleged by the said senior advocate that he did not consent to such an order.“ 

The above statement is contradictory with order dt. 21.12.98 and proceedings dt 8.1.99.

That the local commissioner visited the Bank and submitted his report to this court on 16.2.99 and reported that it was found to be empty. Key of the locker was supplied by Father of the Rajni wife.  Thus the allegation leveled by the applicant were proved that the entire contents of the locker including my family’s ancestral gold worth more than twelve lacks (now worth more than 5 crores) were taken away by Rajni.

            

Kapil Dev Aggarwal.

Click here for;

What I Didn't Knew.! 

List of dates and events. 

False Allegations to Loot Husband. 

In-Laws Indebtedness 

Evidence of theft of my property worth approx Rs 50000000 

What happened in Appeal? 

Lies of jagan nath of BK Jagan & Co to use her 6th daughter to earn money by looting 4th family of their property.

Gopal Singhal,Sector 28, Chandigarh used her sister to save from Bankruptcy

When Brij Singhal Lied.

      

Does CVC take action against corrupt Executive?

From;                      Date; 07.08.2012

CA KD Aggarwal, Advocate.

# 1366, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh

To,

The Director Central Vigilance Commission,

Satarkata Bhavan , A-Block , GPO Complex ,

INA , New Delhi - 110 023

SUB;           Complaint of Corruption against D P Ojha, Class ‘A’ Employee Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi presently posted as Official Liquidator, (attached with Punjab and Haryana High Court), Plot No 4-B, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh.

Dear Sir,

1.     Undersigned is a qualified Chartered Accountant, though an advocate, I am presently not doing any cases subject to odd exception but leading my life for social causes of fighting corruption by Public Servants. In nutshell, the present complaint relates to payments by D P Ojha Official Liquidator, Chandigarh, [Class ‘A’ employee of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi] of crores of rupees of public money to security agencies in name of security guards who have never been born.  

2.     Sh D P Ojha, Official Liquidator possesses hundreds of Crores of unaccounted assets on behalf of the Hon’ble High Court. Estimated worth is in range of 100 Crores to 1000 Crores. D P Ojha has not given accounts of these assets ever to the Hon’ble High Court or to it Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Neither the High Court nor the Ministry has any inventory or valuation of these assets. Letter No 307 Dt 21.02.2012 received from Punjab and Haryana High Court (Annexure C-1) states;-

“It is hereby informed that the Official Liquidator has not supplied compiled list of inventory of all assets and properties of companies under Liquidation along with their valuation. If it has been filed in a particular case then please mention that case number.”

3.     Similarly letter No 7757 Dt 02.03.2012 received from Government of India, Ministry of Corporate affairs (Annexure C-2) states;-

“I am to refer to your application dated 27.2.2012 on the subject citied and to state that no inventory of list of assets and properties of companies under Liquidation furnished by the official Liquidator to the directorate.”

4.     If some crores are missing nobody will be wiser. But where do these missing Crores go and to whom ??? Another interesting feature of their working is that when High Courts tell them to do something they say that they fall under administrative control of Ministry and has to abide by the Ministry and when Ministry tells them to do something they say that they are attached with Hon’ble High Courts and have to follow the High Courts. The counsels in High Courts are dependent on them as work to private advocates is also referred by OLs. To compound the problem, by the time a Company Judge understands the working of OLs, the Roaster is changed. OLs have thus become masters of hundreds of crores of public money on which public has practically no control.

5.     Guidelines have been framed to be implemented by the security agencies and it the duty of D P Ojha, Official Liquidator to ensure that security agencies have implemented with these guidelines before making the payments. Para 5 of said guidelines (Annexure C-3) is;-

“Names and permanent addresses of security guards deployed at the factory / office premises shall be supplied at spot, if possible, by the security agency, but latest within a week’s time of such deployment to Official Liquidator”

6.     After 2009 the requirement was that monthly salaries would be deposited in the bank accounts of employees every month (C-4). It is a matter of record that bank accounts of employees were opened in 2010 out of which 50% were in Goa whereas the employees are shown to be working in Punjab. Again the bank accounts are blank. No salary has been deposited every month as per requirement. Yet D P Ojha is threatening secured creditors that if they do not pay if will get contempt petition notice issued against them. On personal visits these employees could not be found on spot. Banks pays 9% guaranteed return on fixed deposit than why agencies will some work on 7% return unless they are claiming and being paid for fictitious employees.

 

7.     As per information 90% of the employees claimed to be employed by security agency have never been born and hence there cannot be any proof of their permanent addresses and none was ever supplied. Security agencies are required to submit proof of their identity on spot but none have been supplied ever as the security guards in whose name salaries are claimed to be taken have not even been born. Crores of rupees have been given by D P Ojha without verifying the proof of their existence amounting to embezzlement of crores of public money. As per information D P Ojha is charging upto 50% commission from security agencies for approving payment for fictitious employees.

8.     In one such case Rs 1,5 crores are being claimed by Industrial security and fire services Bombay Pvt Ltd in name of 41 employees out of who 38 have never been born. This payment was duly approved to be paid by D P Ojha. Timely Information was given to secured creditor namely PSIDC (Punjab state Industrial development corporation) vide letters Dt 22.11.2010, 7.1.2011 and to secretary Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi vide letter Dt 12.2.2011.

9.     The matter was got investigated by High Court by a committee of three Persons ; D P Ojha Official Liquidator ‘Chairman’ ( strangely main accused is made chairman), Security agency (accused) and PSIDC (secured creditor). Additional Managing Director of PSIDC has given a report vide Annexure ‘A’ of minutes Dt 19.3.2012. (Annexure C-5);

“In the Committee meeting held on 12.3.2012 it was admitted by representative of Security agency and Official Liquidator that names and permanent addresses of security staff deployed by security agency were never supplied to official Liquidator as per the terms and conditions of empanelment of security agencies accepted by the Security agency”. 

In the meeting Proof was given for the 1^st time for only 3 regular employees. Another employee Mr Abhey Kumar Yadav was also claimed to be working with Indo gem laminations another company under Official Liquidator during same period. No proof of existence i.e. ID Proofs, proofs of permanent addresses etc of remaining 38 employees was given. High Court has no administrative control over Central Government Employees.

10.    Inspite of the above information and proofs of embezzlement of crores by D P Ojha, neither the Ministry of Corporate Affairs nor Hon’ble High Court has taken any action and it appears that D P Ojha enjoys some ‘clout’. Sh D P Ojha being class ‘A’ employee of Ministry does not come under administrative control of Hon’ble High court. The only authority competent to take action against D P Ojha is Central Vigilance Commission. Hence this complaint.

For information and necessary action;

CA K D Aggarwal, Advocate.