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