Evidence of Theft / Immoral conduct.

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

Rajni has made the following irreconcilable contradictory statements under oath with respect to the contents and operation of the locker whereby she stole my ancestral property now worth more than Rs 5.00 Crores or 50 million.:-

 A REPLICATION DATED 3.8.1996 

Para 5 n " ..No jewelry was placed in the locker.  The jewelry is with me.  Photostat copy of the writing by me is attached."

Rajni later on amended her petition. No changes were made by me in para 5n of his reply but Rajni Changed her Replication Qua Contents of Locker and now stated in Para 5n as under:- 

REPLICATION DATED 7-11-1997

Para 5 n "..In fact whatever jewellery was kept in the locker a list was given by me to the Rajni and apart from the said list there was no other item worth a single penny in the locker."

B. In replication dt. 3.8.96. & reply dated 1.6.1996,  Rajni  had stated in Para 5n/4 that none of the gold  ornaments were  ever  placed in the Locker and that they were  with  me and my family and that I had categorically  given my  writing dated 19.4.1993 in my hand giving  the details  of gold ornaments which were in my,  mother/father's possession. Now on 27.1.98 in her testimony before the Hon'ble trial Court she has stated that all gold ornaments were in fact placed in the Locker, the list of which was prepared which is dated 19.4.93. This statement now made in court falsifies her averment made in para 5n/4 of her replication dt. 3.8.96. & reply dt 1-6-96.

C. As regards the purpose, she stated in para 4 of her replication dated 7.11.1997 that she operated the Locker to get the original educational certificates which were to be submitted by her to Kurukshetra University from where she wanted to do B.Ed. by Correspondence.  It has now come on record vide P/1 and P/2(on record of trial Court) that she was already admitted to Kurukshetra University and had in fact written to Kurukshetra University seeking return of those certificates and degrees. In response to her request for return of her degrees and certificates Kurukshetra University wrote to her vide Ex.P-1 dt. 25.04.96 that all her degrees and certificates had already been sent to her address mentioned in the admission form. Thus apparently she knew where her degree were and also sought their return from Kurukshetra University where they were sent on 16.8.96 by a registered post. The original receipt is in my possession. Vide Ex d-35 (Record of visits maintained by the Bank) it shows that last two operations of the locker were made by the Rajni Apparently she knew the contents of the locker when she operated the same on 08.09.1995 and 15.9.95.  It was certainly not to get any certificate or degrees but under instigation of her parents to remove steal and misappropriate our valuable property worth 30 lacs now worth more than Rs 5.00 Crores or 50 million which was lying in the said locker.

D. In her examination in chief on 27.1.96 she has stated as under: " On 15.9.95 in the morning I quarreled with her Since it was a daily affair. I went out to go to my Bank to fetch my certificate I found that the same were not lying in the locker as I have sent the same to Kurukshetra University.  The certificates of 8th and 10th were lying in the locker. However, the same were not required. 

PROOF OF FALSITY

In her cross examination she has stated " I took out those certificate with me. I had gone to collect the certificate of 8th and 10th standard. When in the examination in chief I said the same were of no use I said it because of confusion." There was no confusion.  There was theft of our property and ancestral gold and ancestral gold jewelry then worth Rs 30.00 lacs and now worth more than Rs 5.00 Crores or 50.0 million by Rajni. 

E. She has further stated in her para 4 of replication dated 7.11.97 that no jewellery and other valuable worth 30.00 lacs were lying in the locker on 15.9.95. As at the time of its operation on 15.9.95 when the Rajni went to fetch her certificates and degrees, the locker was found empty.

PROOF OF FALSITY

It has been suggested to me by counsel for the Rajni as below: "It is wrong to suggest that I have taken all the articles from the locker at the time when I have put my signatures on the ledger." As per R-11 R-12 Rajni has operated the locker on 8.9.95 and 15.9.95, in case  I had  removed  everything at the time he lastly signed  on  the  ledger, Rajni was bound to be aware of the same on 8.9.95 when she operated the locker and there was thus no reason  for her to operate the locker again on 15.9.95, when she admittedly left the house. As such it falsifies her averment made in her replication dt. 7-11-97.

F.  As regards timing of the operation of locker Rajni stated in her examination on 27-1-98 that in the morning she had quarreled with her husband and had gone to the bank to fetch her Certificates and Degrees.

PROOF OF FALSITY

This statement is falsified by R-12 i.e. the locker account where she herself has mentioned the time of operation of the locker on 15.9.95 as 3.45 P M i.e. in the evening.

       

G. She further stated under oath as below as regards of locker   "I never required my husband to bring any particular jewelry from the locker. I also never required my husband to bring the jewelry and except on 8-9-1995 I never accompanied my husband to operate the locker".

PROOF OF FALSITY

That the trial Court has recorded following demeanor of Rajni.

"Affidavit dated 10-11-1997 filed by me in this court bears my signature.   After the contents in para 10 are put to the witness where she had said that after 19-4-1993 she had been operating the locker for social functions, she said that she could not remember all the events".         

H. That immediately after marriage parties had taken a joint locker on 19.4.93 being No.231 PNB Sector 37 CHANDIGARH (also mentioned in order relied upon by the Rajni) and jewelry, Indira Vikas Patras and other miscellaneous items including Gold and gold coins/silver coins were kept therein.   However, soon after marriage parents of Rajni took away part of the jewelry belonging to the Rajni. This fact came to my knowledge when the same was recovered from her parents house when income tax raids were conducted in may 1994 at the house of her uncle who lived in same house as her parents.  When the I asked Rajni as to how her jewelry is with her parents, she stated that her parents are not very rich and the jewelry was given for a show off to her paternal uncles families and immediately after marriage her parents had sought return of real jewelry, which she had done.  This fact is also mentioned in para 5 n of the written statement filed in the trial Court. When confronted with this fact during the testimony under oath before the Trial Court she had to say as below:

"It is correct that in 1994 Income tax raids were conducted in my parents house.  My personal jewelry was also recovered during that raid. volunteered, it was given to the  me at  that very time. The jewelry, which I was wearing in April, 1994 at the time of marriage of my cousin sister Rashmi were recovered in the raids conducted on the premises of my parents because after the marriage I had left that jewelry which I was wearing at the residence of my parents".

PROOF OF FALSITY

In fact the marriage of Rashmi was performed on 19th April 1995, whereas it was recovered from her parents house in May 1994 a year before marriage of Rashmi. This is so proved in Ex.D1/x and also in the statement of PW4 Brij Singal father of Rashmi who has stated that his daughter Rashmi was married on 19.4.95 at Mandi Gobindgarh.

4. The above statements conclusively prove the theft of property by Rajni and her brother and father/parents.  The property now worth more than Rs 5.00 Crores was my ancestral property and was given to me by my parents. I had been entrusted with the same and I kept the property in my possession in a joint locker. Rajni in collusion instigation and active participation of her Parents and her brother and at their instance and benefit removed the said property without my consent and knowledge. 

5. That entire movable property belonging to me and my parents now worth more than Rs 5.00 Crores or 50 Million was stolen by Rajni and her parents due their habit and indebtedness. Rajni has also made extra judicial confession regarding this property before the court of Justice Swatantar Kumar(From Delhi High Court) during the course of reconciliation Proceedings during hearing of Civil Revision 3387/99.

6.  Rajni  under the influence and instigation of her parents, with their common intention to devour the property of lacs of Rupees lying in the locker made up her mind to leave the matrimonial home. Unknown to the Me she operated his family locker on 8th of September, 1995 and on 15th of September and left the home on 15.9.95 alongwith all household goods i.e. Sofa-set, Double Bed, suit cases, entire crockery (steel, glass and Chinaware), Beddings, AC, Godrej Almirah, Washing Machine, T.V., Dressing table, entire Wardrobe including my undergarments, furniture, Gifts given to me by my friends and relatives, every small item.  In nutshell each and every thing that a normal household has. Copy of affidavit of Pawittar kumar Truck Driver in whose truck Parents of Rajni carried the household goods belonging to me and my parents and affidavit of Sh. Santosh Mishra an independent eye witness is annexed as R-19 and R-20 respectively. Sh. Pawittar Kumar and Sh. Santosh Mishra appeared before the Trial Court as witnesses and corroborated R-2, R-3. They were duly cross examined by Padam jain advocate. As per the description given by late Sh. B.L.Premi Asst. Branch Manager, during the time of her clandestine operation of locker on 15.9.1995 she was accompanied inside the Bank by Sh.Brij Singal, to whom Jagan nath ,Gopal, etc then owed Rs. 5.00 Lacs.

Her lawyer used to inform my lawyer in advance the orders which will be passed by the concerned judge. 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. We were told of exact order on her 2^nd maintenance application even when application had not even been argued. I went to inspection Judge Justice HS Brar and told him of the 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. The same order was passed by SS Lamba then ADJ now district Judge ---. So, I informed the inspection 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 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, then ADJ now district Judge .. who would then call concerned Judge SS Lamba.

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.

KD Aggarwal

Click here for;

What I Did not Knew nor could imagine.

Dates and Events.

Parents 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/creditors lied to pocket his debt to Jagan Family

Are you a victim of coruption?

Have you filed Complaint of Corruption ? 

we hear that public has to face a lot of corruption in public dealing departments e.g. Registering and licensing Authority, Food and civil supplies, Estate office Deputy commissioner and District Magisterate Office or office of birth and death etc. However, is there actually any corruption or we are just a normal complaining persons? if there is corruption the first thing required to do is to file a complaint with proper authority. Have we performed our duty or are we also as corrupt when we do not file any complaint if we suffer unnecessary harassment or asked to pay for what is our right.  

Vide letter No 503 dated 18.11.2013, office of Deputy Commissioner, Estate office, Chandigarh has informed that in last one year they received 18,382 applications which were processed and during same period eight complaints against staff members were received.

Vide letter No 12231 dated 13.11.2013 licensing Authority, Chandigarh has informed that they received 19039 applications for new licenses and 14345 applications for renewal of driving licenses in last one year. During same period they received 51493 applications for RCS. Whereas during this period number of complaints received from public were only 5 (five).

Vide letter No 3339 Dated 19.11.2013, Department of food and Civil Supplies, Chandigarh has informed me that they received applications for and issued 5848 new ration cards and 731 duplicate ration cards in last one year and no complaint against any staff member was received.

Vide letter No 2713 Dt 23.10.2013, Registrar of Birth and deaths has informed that in last one year they have received 27800 applications for grant of Birth certificates and 10339 Applications for grant of death certificates. Whereas during same period they received only one complaint against their staff member.

Vide letter No 12231 dated 13.11.2013 Registering Authority has informed that in last one year they have received 51493 applications for grant or nenewal of Registering certificates of vehicles and complaints including against Licensing branch were only 5 (five).

If there is corruption, why we do not file complaints? To blame others is is easy when we in particular do not perform our duty to control corruption.

Can we still say corruption is way of life. If there is corruption, where are complaints? I would like readers comments to know how and where is corruption ?

Kapil Dev Aggarwal

perjury by Arun Palli advocate chandigarh

Special Children for Judiciary 1 - Arun Palli senior Advocate, Chandigarh, S/O Justice PK Palli (retired)

Following is text of application for perjury-Crime against Justice i.e. making false statements in court of Law by Sh Arun palli, Senior Advocate S/O Justice P K Palli and probably who will decide your cases in future. His knowledge about Law, Facts and English can be judged from following public record and anyone can obtain certified copy of CM 5153/2011 in CWP 10434 of 2010 decided April 8th, 2011. Criminal Justice System gets a new meaning.

"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   …Accused

Application u/s 151 CPC read with section 340 Cr P C r/w section 199-200 and 209 IPC for making a complaint to Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandigarh of CJM Sangrur to try offenses committed by accused against Public Justice in the course of hearing of CWP 10434 of 2010 on 31.3.2011 by making false statements before this Hon’ble court.

Respectfully showeth;-

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 Sh Arun Palli the counsel makes statement at bar that 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.

It is therefore prayed that a complaint u/s 195 CR PC be made against the accused in the court of Chief Judicial magistrate Chandigarh / Sangrur for trial of offences u/s 199-200, 209 committed by accused against Public Justice in the course of hearing of CWP 10434 of 2010 on 31.3.2011 before this Hon’ble court.

Chandigarh                                                 Petitioners

Date  04.04.2011"                                

C M 5153/11 was listed on April 7th 2011 and notice was issued to Arun Palli for 15.5.2011. The C M was listed on 5.5.2011 before another bench but file never came. The C M was dismissed by an ante dated order of 8-4-2011 after it was listed on 5-5-2011. The case was never listed on 8-4-2011. The facts were never denied either by Judge or by Arun Palli. These are the special children of and for Judiciary. Mother Teresa has built a home for special Children. Below is affidavit filed.

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh,

C.M. NO 5153 of 2011 IN CWP No 10434 of 2010.

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

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