My Complaint against high Court Judge;
Click here for Oath Taken by J Rajive Bhalla. High Court Chandigarh.
On 31st of May we all read in The tribune an incident wherein a litigant got in court room of Rajive Bhalla, Judge and made a statement regarding graft / corruption. The gentleman was client of Mr Sisodia a known lawyer of fair standing at the bar. The Litigant said in open Court that he had paid 34 lacs to his lawyer for onward payment to Judge for favorable order. This was 3rd known incident in Court room of Justice Rajive Bhalla. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120531/punjab.htm#19
Click here for Oath Taken by J Rajive Bhalla. High Court Chandigarh.
On 31st of May we all read in The tribune an incident wherein a litigant got in court room of Rajive Bhalla, Judge and made a statement regarding graft / corruption. The gentleman was client of Mr Sisodia a known lawyer of fair standing at the bar. The Litigant said in open Court that he had paid 34 lacs to his lawyer for onward payment to Judge for favorable order. This was 3rd known incident in Court room of Justice Rajive Bhalla. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120531/punjab.htm#19
There was another incident in early 2011,
wherein another litigant had got up in court room of Rajive Bhalla, Judge and
made a statement about graft / corruption. He also said that He had paid lacs
of Rupees to his lawyer for onward payment to judge for favorable order and if
amount was less he can pay more. The gentleman was client of Mr Ahluwalia a
known lawyer of fair standing at the bar.
The incident published in “The Tribune” on 31st
may was in fact 3rd known incident involving Rajive Bhalla, Judge High Court.
2nd incident is reproduced below by way of the text of Judicial record
involving Rajive Bhalla, Judge where he was asked to
recuse himself from a matter and he was told not to accept briefs in his
chambers. Any one can obtain certified copy of Company Application 167 of 2011
decided on 1.4.2011 text of which is Click Here.
In exercise of right to make complaint
against a Judge granted by
A. Section 3(2) of Judges Protection
Act,
B. Rule 1(1) of Advocates duty to Court
(Uphold dignity of court by pointing out a delinquent Judge).
C. In-House Mechanism by H Supreme Court of
India to transfer delinquent Judge.
D. Reasons behind Judges Accountability Bill.
E. Letter Dt 27-5-2011 by Ministry of law and Justice.
Following
is part of Public records.
To, Date;
07.4.2012
The Chief Justice of India and Brother Judges
Of Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
SUB;
Request for Transfer of Justice
Rajive Bhalla of Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Respectfully Showeth;
1.
It is common knowledge that official Liquidators attached with High Courts hold
hundreds of Crores of unaccounted assets, which actually vest with High Courts
under Section 456(2) of Companies Act. I say unaccounted as neither the High
Court nor the Ministry has any inventory or any valuation of these assets. Copy
of letter No 307 Dt 21.02.2012 received from Punjab and Haryana High Court is
attached herewith as Annexure C/1. Similarly letter No 7757 Dt
02.03.2012 received from Government of India, Ministry of Corporate affairs is
attached herewith as Annexure C/2.
2.
At the time of sale ‘block of assets’ are mentioned and what
has been embezzled or diverted for personal use is anyone’s guess. Official
liquidators are always on the lookout for judges who are willing to share such
loot with them. If any relative of a Judge or even a Judge himself wants any
property from the Official Liquidator, then Official Liquidators are a game for
giving such property to relative of a Judge or even Judge himself in exchange
for increasing their own loot. Hence while appointing Company judges, utmost
care has to be exercised.
3.
Justice Rajive Bhalla, who was company Judge from 1.1.2011 to 31.5.2011 has
been favoring D P Ojha, Official Liquidator Chandigarh. The actual reasons are
known to only Justice Rajive Bhalla and D P Ojha. What we hear in the Bar or
from office of official Liquidator for the actual reasons or actual amount of
money involved is a Hearsay. D P Ojha says that he owns Justice Rajive Bhalla
and that present company Judge Justice Surya Kant is obliged to him.
4.
As part of my crusade against corruption, I had filed complaint against D P
Ojha official Liquidator under prevention of corruption Act with Ministry of
corporate affairs vide my complaint Dt 22.11.2010 and 07.1.2011 Annexure
C/3. To get documentary evidence I had also been making applications
under RTI. On 11.3.2011, Justice Rajive Bhalla asked me to withdraw my
complaints under prevention of corruption Act against D P Ojha Official
Liquidator. He threatened me in open court and said he will finish my career,
he file ask bar council to remove me as a lawyer, he will dismiss all my cases.
He will see to it that no judge decides my cases as per law and all my clients
cases will also be dismissed if I do not withdraw all my complaints of
corruption under prevention of corruption Act against D P Ojha, Official
Liquidator. He also threatened to institute Criminal contempt of Court
proceedings against me. He also specifically told me to withdraw my complaint
under prevention of corruption Act regarding embezzlement of Rs 1.00 crores
which was payment towards 41 employees claimed by Industrial security agency of
J S Kahaan out of whom 38 have never been born (See Proof). His conduct left no manner of doubt of
his collusion and criminal nexus with D P Ojha and/or M L Sharma/J S Kahaan.
Any person will also believe that DP Ojha/ML Sharma had met Justice Rajive
Bhalla in Chambers and had a secret deal behind closed doors to make illegal
payment of Rs 1.00 crores to industrial Security agency.
Section
16 of Contempt of Courts Act states as under;-
5.
“16. Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially.
(1)
Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a judge,
magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt
of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other
individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be,
apply accordingly
6.
He threatened me in open court and said he will finish my career, he file ask
bar council to remove me as a lawyer, he will dismiss all my cases. He will see
to it that no judge decides my cases as per law and all my clients cases will
also be dismissed if I do not withdraw all my complaints of corruption under
prevention of corruption Act against D P Ojha, Official Liquidator. He also
threatened to institute Criminal contempt of Court proceedings against me. He
also specifically told me to withdraw my complaint under prevention of
corruption Act regarding embezzlement of Rs 1.00 crores which was payment
towards 41 employees claimed by Industrial security agency of J S Kahaan out
of whom 38 have never been born (See Proof). His conduct left no manner of doubt of
his collusion and criminal nexus with D P Ojha and/or M L Sharma/J S Kahaan. He
abused the High court by giving threats from the chair of a High Court Judge
while holding court and also misused his official position to promote
embezelement of public funds in the name of never born persons. His thus
committed criminal contempt of his own court within the meaning of section 16
(supra).
7.
Justice Rajive Bhalla used street language, abuses and gave me verbal threats
for filing complaints against D P Ojha, Official Liquidator on following
issues.
A.
Sh D P Ojha official Liquidator, an employee of O/O Ministry of corporate affairs
in league with Sh M L Sharma Middleman and Sh J S Kahaan was going to release a
sum of Rs 1.00 crores to J S Kahaan on the basis of alleged payment to 41
workers 90% of whom have never been born. A letter in this respect was filed
with Official Liquidator and PSIDC on 20.11.2010 followed with another letter
with documents on 7.1.2011
B.
Sh D P Ojha was trying to buy property of Him Ispat by wrongly undervaluing the
area as 3 acres instead of actual area of 6 acres for which I had written letter
under RTI. High Court of HP was timely informed of the above fact and High
Court of HP has ordered re advertisement.
D.
letters written regarding excess payments to certain persons not approved by
High Court.
E.
I had referred above matters to Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate
Affairs NOIDA and Ministry, administrative heads of SH D P Ojha vide my letters
Dt 12.2.2011.
F.
There is CBI chargesheet against D P Ojha in the matter of Arihant Cotsyn Ltd
for embezzlement of funds pending at New Delhi.
8.
‘Justice’ Rajive Bhalla acted as agent / employee of D P Ojha, liquidator and
wanted me to withdraw complaints of corruption against him and also wanted to
falsely record that I have withdrawn the said complaints and will not make any
application under RTI. Order sheet merely states “Notice to OL for
16.3.2011”. However abuses and verbal threats against me were given orally.
9.
In his earlier tenure also as company judge, Justice Rajiv Bhalla in matter of
IFCI VS AVI Autos, had deliberately recorded incorrect statement of Sh Gurnam
Singh to give pecuniary advantage to D P Ojha, Justice Rajiv Bhalla summoned
Gurnam Singh to court and then proceeded to record his statement without
referring to Gurnam Singh though Sh Gurnam had rather made totally opposite
statement.
10.
In view of above facts and to avoid repeat of what happened in “IFCI VS AVI
Autos” neither me nor my counsel went to the court on 16.3.2011 but filed
Company Misc Application 167 of 2011 stating all the above averments as made
herein above. I requested Justice Rajiv Bhalla to recuse himself from hearing
the case. I also stated that it is not appropriate for a sitting High Court
Judge to start accepting private briefs of private parties by meeting them in
Chambers. It was interalia stated as under;-
“Industrial
security is very rich company based on its ‘connections’ and have sufficient
resources and can hire most competent advocates who are ‘officially advocates’
”.
…
“The
reply is being filed to put the record straight as lies have been told to Sh
Rajiv Bhalla in chambers by vested interests. Mr Justice Rajiv Bhalla has
made uncalled for comments, has used intemperate/ abusive language / gave
verbal threats against applicant and has shown extreme bias and prejudice
against the applicant and in favor of respondent D P Ojha based on lies told
to him in Chambers by Sh D P Ojha and has asked me to appear before him on
16-3-2011.”
Contents
of written submissions filed before Justice Rajiv Bhalla on judicial side be
treated as part of this information. Copy is attached as Annexure C/3.
11.
My application containing averments of corruption against Justice Rajive Bhalla
came up before Justice Rajiv Bhalla on 16.3.2011. Record shows that Justice
Rajiv Bhalla did not deny any of the averments made against him in the Misc
Application 167 of 2011 when it came up before him on 16.3.2011. He simply
adjourned the matter to 1st April 2011 on which date he went on
leave (conveniently). Justice Rajiv Bhalla could not possibly deny the
abuses, threats intemperate, street language that he is used in open court
without being called a liar and / or losing face.
12.
The same day I had endorsed a complaint to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice High
Court vide my letter Dt March 14th 2011. Copy is Annexure C/4.
13.
Justice Rajiv Bhalla is favoring rich and corrupt persons and by his conduct,
he is not fit to be a Judge. Throughout his tenure, 2011 (I did not go to his
court thereafter), he has openly and constantly abusing Sh Anna Hazare and
people of this country who wanted Jan Lok Pal and were seeking accountability
of people holding public offices including Judicial accountability. It is
obvious why Rajive Bhalla does not want a Jan Lok Pal or / and be accountable
to society. He is openly abusing his chair, the court room where he sits and is
guilty of contempt of court under section 16 of the Contempt of courts Act.
14.
I had earlier filed a similar complaint before this court vide my letter Dt 20.2.2012.
However the same lacked material particulars. Hence this complaint with better
particulars.
It
is therefore respectfully Prayed that ;-
1.
Justice Rajive Bhalla, Judge Punjab and Haryana High Court be transferred out
of said high Court in the interests of of Judiciary.
2.
Proceedings in high Courts be monitored by CCTV Cameras / electronically
recorded so that Courts may not become places of terror or intimidation. If
what Justice Rajive Bhalla said in open court was broadcast in media, I do not
think he will ever be employed anywhere.
K
D Aggarwal,
Advocate
Encl;
C-1. Letter No 307 Dated 21.02.2012 by
Punjab and Haryana High Court.
C-2 Letter No 7757 Dated
02.03.2012 by ministry of Corporate Affairs.
C-3 Copy of CA 167 / 2011 filed
before Justice Rajive Bhalla.
C-4 Copy of letter Dated
14.03.2011 to Chief Justice.
K
D Aggarwal,
Advocate
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
In the matter of ;
Transfer of Justice Rajiv Bhalla 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.
It is common knowledge that official Liquidators attached with High Courts hold
hundreds of Crores of unaccounted assets, which actually vest with High Courts
under Section 456(2) of Companies Act. I say unaccounted as neither the High
Court nor the Ministry has any inventory or any valuation of these assets. Copy
of letter No 307 Dt 21.02.2012 received from Punjab and Haryana High Court is
attached herewith as Annexure C/1. Similarly letter No 7757 Dt
02.03.2012 received from Government of India, Ministry of Corporate affairs is
attached herewith as Annexure C/2.
2.
At the time of sale ‘block of assets’ are mentioned and what
has been embezzled or diverted for personal use is anyone’s guess. Official
liquidators are always on the lookout for judges who are willing to share such
loot with them. If any relative of a Judge or even a Judge himself wants any
property from the Official Liquidator, then Official Liquidators are a game for
giving such property to relative of a Judge or even Judge himself in exchange
for increasing their own loot. Hence while appointing Company judges, utmost
care has to be exercised.
3.
Justice Rajive Bhalla, who was company Judge from 1.1.2011 to 31.5.2011 has
been favoring D P Ojha, Official Liquidator Chandigarh. The actual reasons are
known to only Justice Rajive Bhalla and D P Ojha. What we hear in the Bar or
from office of official Liquidator for the actual reasons or actual amount of
money involved is a Hearsay. D P Ojha says that he owns Justice Rajive Bhalla
and that present company Judge Justice Surya Kant is obliged to him.
4.
As part of my crusade against corruption, I had filed complaint against D P
Ojha official Liquidator under prevention of corruption Act with Ministry of
corporate affairs vide my complaint Dt 22.11.2010 and 07.1.2011 Annexure
C/3. To get documentary evidence I had also been making applications
under RTI. On 11.3.2011, Justice Rajive Bhalla asked me to withdraw my
complaints under prevention of corruption Act against D P Ojha Official
Liquidator. He threatened me in open court and said he will finish my career,
he file ask bar council to remove me as a lawyer, he will dismiss all my cases.
He will see to it that no judge decides my cases as per law and all my clients
cases will also be dismissed if I do not withdraw all my complaints of
corruption under prevention of corruption Act against D P Ojha, Official
Liquidator. He also threatened to institute Criminal contempt of Court
proceedings against me. He also specifically told me to withdraw my complaint
under prevention of corruption Act regarding embezzlement of Rs 1.00 crores
which was payment towards 41 employees claimed by Industrial security agency of
J S Kahaan out of whom 38 have never been born. His conduct left
no manner of doubt of his collusion and criminal nexus with D P Ojha and/or M L
Sharma/J S Kahaan. Any person will also believe that DP Ojha/ML Sharma had met
Justice Rajive Bhalla in Chambers and had a secret deal behind closed doors to
make illegal payment of Rs 1.00 crores to industrial Security agency.
Section
16 of Contempt of Courts Act states as under;-
5.
“16. Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially.
(1)
Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a judge,
magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt
of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other
individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be,
apply accordingly
6.
He threatened me in open court and said he will finish my career, he file ask
bar council to remove me as a lawyer, he will dismiss all my cases. He will see
to it that no judge decides my cases as per law and all my clients cases will
also be dismissed if I do not withdraw all my complaints of corruption under
prevention of corruption Act against D P Ojha, Official Liquidator. He also
threatened to institute Criminal contempt of Court proceedings against me. He
also specifically told me to withdraw my complaint under prevention of
corruption Act regarding embezzlement of Rs 1.00 crores which was payment
towards 41 employees claimed by Industrial security agency of J S Kahaan out
of whom 38 have never been born. His conduct left no manner of doubt of
his collusion and criminal nexus with D P Ojha and/or M L Sharma/J S Kahaan. He
abused the High court by giving threats from the chair of a High Court Judge
while holding court and also misused his official position to promote
embezelement of public funds in the name of never born persons. His thus
committed criminal contempt of his own court within the meaning of section 16
(supra).
7.
Justice Rajive Bhalla used street language, abuses and gave me verbal threats
for filing complaints against D P Ojha, Official Liquidator on following
issues.
A.
Sh D P Ojha official Liquidator, an employee of O/O Ministry of corporate
affairs in league with Sh M L Sharma Middleman and Sh J S Kahaan was going to
release a sum of Rs 1.00 crores to J S Kahaan on the basis of alleged payment
to 41 workers 90% of whom have never been born. A letter in this respect was
filed with Official Liquidator and PSIDC on 20.11.2010 followed with another
letter with documents on 7.1.2011
B.
Sh D P Ojha was trying to buy property of Him Ispat by wrongly undervaluing the
area as 3 acres instead of actual area of 6 acres for which I had written
letter under RTI. High Court of HP was timely informed of the above fact and
High Court of HP has ordered re advertisement.
D.
letters written regarding excess payments to certain persons not approved by
High Court.
E.
I had referred above matters to Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate
Affairs NOIDA and Ministry, administrative heads of SH D P Ojha vide my letters
Dt 12.2.2011.
F.
There is CBI chargesheet against D P Ojha in the matter of Arihant Cotsyn Ltd
for embezzlement of funds pending at New Delhi.
8.
‘Justice’ Rajive Bhalla acted as agent / employee of D P Ojha, liquidator and
wanted me to withdraw complaints of corruption against him and also wanted to
falsely record that I have withdrawn the said complaints and will not make any
application under RTI. Order sheet merely states “Notice to OL for
16.3.2011”. However abuses and verbal threats against me were given orally.
9.
In his earlier tenure also as company judge, Justice Rajiv Bhalla in matter of
IFCI VS AVI Autos, had deliberately recorded incorrect statement of Sh Gurnam
Singh to give pecuniary advantage to D P Ojha, Justice Rajiv Bhalla summoned
Gurnam Singh to court and then proceeded to record his statement without
referring to Gurnam Singh though Sh Gurnam had rather made totally opposite
statement.
10.
In view of above facts and to avoid repeat of what happened in “IFCI VS AVI
Autos” neither me nor my counsel went to the court on 16.3.2011 but filed
Company Misc Application 167 of 2011 stating all the above averments as made
herein above. I requested Justice Rajiv Bhalla to recuse himself from hearing
the case. I also stated that it is not appropriate for a sitting High Court
Judge to start accepting private briefs of private parties by meeting them in
Chambers. It was interalia stated as under;-
“Industrial
security is very rich company based on its ‘connections’ and have sufficient
resources and can hire most competent advocates who are ‘officially advocates’
”.
…
“The
reply is being filed to put the record straight as lies have been told to Sh
Rajiv Bhalla in chambers by vested interests. Mr Justice Rajiv Bhalla has
made uncalled for comments, has used intemperate/ abusive language / gave
verbal threats against applicant and has shown extreme bias and prejudice
against the applicant and in favor of respondent D P Ojha based on lies told
to him in Chambers by Sh D P Ojha and has asked me to appear before him on
16-3-2011.”
Contents
of written submissions filed before Justice Rajiv Bhalla on judicial side be
treated as part of this information. Copy is attached as Annexure C/3.
11.
My application containing averments of corruption against Justice Rajive Bhalla
came up before Justice Rajiv Bhalla on 16.3.2011. Record shows that Justice
Rajiv Bhalla did not deny any of the averments made against him in the Misc
Application 167 of 2011 when it came up before him on 16.3.2011. He simply
adjourned the matter to 1st April 2011 on which date he went on
leave (conveniently). Justice Rajiv Bhalla could not possibly deny the
abuses, threats intemperate, street language that he is used in open court
without being called a liar and / or losing face.
12.
The same day I had endorsed a complaint to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice High
Court vide my letter Dt March 14th 2011. Copy is Annexure C/4.
13.
Justice Rajiv Bhalla is favoring rich and corrupt persons and by his conduct,
he is not fit to be a Judge. Throughout his tenure, 2011 (I did not go to his
court thereafter), he has openly and constantly abusing Sh Anna Hazare and
people of this country who wanted Jan Lok Pal and were seeking accountability
of people holding public offices including Judicial accountability. It is
obvious why Rajive Bhalla does not want a Jan Lok Pal or / and be accountable
to society. He is openly abusing his chair, the court room where he sits and is
guilty of contempt of court under section 16 of the Contempt of courts Act.
14.
I had earlier filed a similar complaint before this court vide my letter Dt
20.2.2012. However the same lacked material particulars. Hence this complaint
with better particulars.
Date 07.04.2012
Chandigarh Deponent
Verification;
Verified that contents of above para are true
to my knowledge and belief. No part
is false and nothing material is concealed
herein.
Date 07.04.2012
Chandigarh Deponent
