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.