Following is part of public record comprised
in CA 657/2011, CA 580/2011.
Order of Judge Surya Kant initiating Contempt passed in CA 657 of 2011 and CA 580 of 2011 along with copies of Applications is as under;
"Since I am inclined to make a reference to
initiate Criminal Contempt of Court Proceedings against Mr KD Aggarwal,
Advocate, let this application be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for
appropriate orders.
The
(DP Ojha) Official Liquidator has handed over a sealed envelope which shall also be appended
alongwith the reference to be made separately.
List on 13.1.2012
Signed Surya Kant Judge
Date’ 09-12-2011"
Note; As per record, the file was received directly
from Surya Kant court on 9-1-2012 which establishes that above order was ante
dated. Short hand diary of PA (of 9-12-2011) will reveal that order passed on
09-12-2011 was “ List before other bench after obtaining orders from Hon’ble
the Chief Justice. This order was passed on my company application for listing
the matter before other bench. The application is as under;
In the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh
Company
Application 657 of 2011
In Company
Application 580 of 2011
In the matter of;
Embezzlement of
funds by DP Ojha, Official Liquidator, Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Application
u/r 9 of company Court Rules 1959 to
point out Orders of Hon’ble the chief Justice.
Respectfully
Showeth;
1. That matter pertains to Embezzlement of
funds by D P Ojha Official Liquidator, high Court. It is information given to
Hon’ble High Court on administrative side, which is based on documents received
under RTI. This matter was earlier dealt with on Administrative side by senior
company Judge, who then ordered that this matter to be listed on judicial
side. Error in listing occurred as
Computer could not read the name of Judge who passed earlier Order. I am (as
everyone else) is in dark as to why an administrative matter is listed on
Judicial side which is only known to the Hon’ble Judge who passed the said
Order. The matter was brought to the notice of Registrar (Judicial) to rectify
computer error and matter was thereafter placed before Hon’ble chief Justice
who was pleased to pass the following Order;-
“If any change is required, matter may be mentioned
before the Judge
Sd/ Chief Justice”
Hence the present
application, for listing the matter before appropriate Bench.
2. The instant matter pertains to embezzlement
of funds worth more than Rs 1.00 Crores from properties vested in High Court
u/s 456(2) of Companies Act. On 21.10.11, SH D P Ojha falsely stated in court,
that my information is because on 3.2.11 he declined to examine my fee Bill sanctioned
by H S Bawa ex-official
Liquidator. Company petition and appeal filed by D P Ojha have already been
dismissed. First information against illegal payment to Industrial security
being made by D P Ojha against the nonexistent persons was by my letter Dt
20-11-2010 three months before his order of 3.2.2011 followed by letter Dt
7-1-2011 again one month before 3-2-2011. His order is being contrary to Orders
of the then Chief Justice are also malafide as I had informed his administrative
head that D P ojha is making payment on for nonexistent persons.
3. Justice Justice Surya Kant had inter alia
stated on 21.10.2011 that He knows everything about me. Let it be clarified
that no one knows anything about me except what I have told him/her. Rest is
all hearsay. I do not advertise the truth. To quote Winston Churchill ; “A lie
gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants
on.” I am a victim of corruption, nepotism and favoritism. Like any other
honest person I dislike these things. I can rebut each and everything which
Justice Surya Kant may have heard about me that puts me in any negative light.
(which will require mutual discussion – not while sitting on constitutional
chair discussing matters not judicially before court). No one in the bar or
staff knew about my letter Dt 4.6.2011. It is not possible to argue any case if
there is mutual distrust. In view of
incident of 21.10.2011, and to avoid repetition of the same, it is also appropriate
that matter be listed before another Bench.
It is therefore
prayed that matter be ordered to be listed before appropriate bench. This
mention is being made as per the order of Hon’ble the chief Justice dated
17.11.2011. Original Order is already on record of this case.
Chandigarh K
D Aggarwal
Date; December 06,
2011 Applicant
In the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Company
Application 657/2011
In Company
Application 580/2011
In the matter of;
Embezzlement of
funds by DP Ojha, Official Liquidator, Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Affidavit of K D
Aggarwal S/O R K Aggarwal R/O 1366, sector 40-, Chandigarh
I, Solemnly affirm
and declare;-
1. That matter pertains to Embezzlement of
funds by D P Ojha Official Liquidator, high Court. It is information given to
Hon’ble High Court on administrative side, which is based on documents received
under RTI. This matter was earlier dealt with on Administrative side by senior
company Judge, who ordered this matter to be listed on judicial side. Error in listing occurred as Computer could
not read the name of Judge who passed earlier Order. I am (as everyone else) is
in dark as to why an administrative matter is listed on Judicial side which is only
known to the Hon’ble Judge who passed the said Order. The matter was brought to
the notice of Registrar (Judicial) to rectify computer error and matter was
thereafter placed before Hon’ble chief Justice who was pleased to pass the
following Order;-
“If any change is required, matter may be mentioned
before the Judge
Sd/ Chief Justice”
Hence the present
application, for listing the matter before appropriate Bench.
2. The instant matter pertains to embezzlement
of funds worth more than Rs 1.00 Crores from properties vested in High Court
u/s 456(2) of Companies Act. On 21.10.11, SH D P Ojha falsely stated in court,
that my information is because on 3.2.11 he declined to examine my fee Bill
sanctioned by H S Bawa ex-official Liquidator. Company petition and appeal
filed by D P Ojha have already been dismissed. First information against
illegal payment to Industrial security being made by D P Ojha against the
nonexistent persons was by my letter Dt 20-11-2010 three months before his
order of 3.2.2011 followed by letter Dt 7-1-2011 again one month before
3-2-2011. His order is being contrary to Orders of the then Chief Justice are
also malafide as I had informed his administrative head that D P ojha is making
payment on for nonexistent persons.
3. Justice Justice Surya Kant had inter alia
stated on 21.10.2011 that He knows everything about me. Let it be clarified
that no one knows anything about me except what I have told him/her. Rest is
all hearsay. I do not advertise the truth. To quote Winston Churchill ; “A lie
gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants
on.” I am a victim of corruption, nepotism and favoritism. Like any other
honest person I dislike these things. I can rebut each and everything which
Justice Surya Kant may have heard about me that puts me in any negative light.
(which will require mutual discussion – not while sitting on constitutional
chair discussing matters not judicially before court). No one in the bar or
staff knew about my letter Dt 4.6.2011. It is not possible to argue any case if
there is mutual distrust. In view of
incident of 21.10.2011, and to avoid repetition of the same, it is also appropriate
that matter be listed before another Bench.
Chandigarh
Dated 06.12.2011 Deponent
Verification.
Verified that
contents of above affidavit are true and correct to m knowledge. No part is
false and noting material is concealed.
Chandigarh
Dated 06.12.2011 Deponent
In High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Company Application 580/2011
To, Date September
23rd, 2011
Hon’ble Company
Judge,
Punjab and Haryana
High Court,
Chandigarh.
Sub; Embezzlement of funds of about Rs 1.00 Crores
from properties vested in High Court u/s 456(2) of companies Act 1956.
Dear Sir,
With intent to
cause loss to secured creditors and with intent to gain undue financial
advantage to themselves, Sh D P Ojha, Sh J S Kahaan, MD Guardian Security &
Industrial security and fire services Bombay P Ltd and Sh M L Sharma MCA lobbyist, and Sh B K L
Srivasatava ex Official Liquidator have entered into a criminal conspiracy to
cheat and commit fraud with public money / public funds by raising a false and
fraudulent claim in the matter of security guards bill raised by Industrial
security fire services Bombay Ltd. The relevant details are as under;-
A. Security
agency has not made any payment to security guards;
1. That in affidavit Dt 11.8.2010 filed with
Official Liquidator by Industrial security and fire services (Bombay) pvt Ltd,
in PNFC, it is stated that they have made entire payment from September 2005 to
May 2009 (approx Rs 80,00,000/-) to their security guards. In addition they
have ‘paid’ several more lacs in the cases of Arihant Cotsyn, hallmark
healthcare, Mangla Cotex, Organic Chemoils, AVI shoes, la Medica, Punwire, Indo
gem Laminations, Curefast remedies, Shiv Durga Alloys, etc. apart from several
other companies vested in other high courts where it is empanelled. Their share
capital is only Rs 50,000/-. They don’t have the wherewithal to pay Crores let
alone Rs 80,00,000/- in PNFC to security guards. Their bank accounts do not
show any such receipt of crores during 9/05 to 12/09. Such payment is also not
reflected in their books of accounts. There is no question of their making any
payment to security guards. At the time of inspection by PSIDC if at all
permitted by OL, they have advance information from OL and their henchman
collects daily wagers from labor chowk for a day to make up the numbers. During
surprise inspection, staff found is 95% less vis a vis as claimed by Industrial
Security. Copy of surprise inspection report got done by PSIDC is enclosed. As
per this report there were only 5 employees as against 143 being claimed in the
case of PNFC. Thus admittedly and as per evidence Industrial security is
embezzling funds to the tune of 95% of claimed amount i. e (Rs 95 Lacs in case
of one company alone) of their false and fraudulent claim. They
do not have cash in hand to incur the expenses being claimed from high courts.
B Blank Bank
account submitted
2a. False a/cs have been opened in Goa in name
of employyes alleged to be based in Punjab. It is to facilitate theft of funds.
Vide order Dt 7/8/2009 passed in CA 1-2/2009 in CP 254 of 1999, it was ordered
that security agencies hence forth shall deposit salary of security guards in
their bank accounts. However vide affidavit Dt 11.8.2010 by Industrial
security, it has stated on oath that no salary has been paid to security guards
through bank accounts after august 2009. This amounts to refusal to accept the
order of High Court. Bank accounts are blank. The name of security guards on spot do not tally with names given in
bank accounts.
2b last Lump sum payment deposited by them on
receipt of Rs 11,00,000 were withdrawn back by them on the basis of advance
cheques they had collected from guards. Copy of their bank statements are on
record. They have obviously filed false affidavits to derive undue gain to
themselves and cause undue loss to secured creditors. OL should ask security agency
to refund entire amount received by them till date along with up to date
interest. Copy of their indemnity bond is on record.
C. Security
agencies working on annual return of 1% ex-facie False.
3. That in the matter of PNFC, the security
agency is claiming payment since 2005. Industrial Security and fire services
(Bombay) has submitted blank statement of bank a/c of employees which indicate
that no payment has been made to employees through bank accounts. The
contention of security agency that it is taking only 1% pa return(7% over 7
year period means 1% annual return) is impossible as banks give assured return
of approx 8% pa. With intent to gain advantage to themselves and cause loss to
public exchequer, Security agency has refused to accept conditions laid down by
the Court in its order Dt 7.8 2009 and violated them with impunity.
D. Commission
based allocation of work;
4. That according to J S Kahaan, Managing
Director of Guardian Industrial and Investigation security services, work for
the appointment of security agency work is not allocated seriatim by High Court
but telephonic bids are invited by Official Liquidator and only that security
agency is appointed which offers highest commission to OL. Normal rate of commission varies from 40-60%
depending on number of guards and period for which they will continue, which is
paid at the time of release of money. Hence in a case of criminal conspiracy
and intent to gain financial advantage to themselves no attempt has been made
to sell assets for last more than a decade even though taking out advertisement
of sale would take only ten minutes.
E. Theft of
assets;
5. It is an admitted fact that no inventory
was prepared either by BKL Srivasatava or by present OL or by security agency
and none was allowed to be prepared by secured creditors or industrial security
agency/ Guardian Industrial Investigation and security services Pvt Ltd.
Inventory is generally not prepared
to facilitate theft by security agencies. I cannot disclose information which
had come to my possession when I was counsel for Guardian Industrial
Investigation and security services Pvt Ltd. as to clandestine sale of assets
by Industrial security & fire services Pvt Ltd.
F. Premises
given on rent by security agency.
6. When asked as to how security agency
manages to pay even 5% of the staff which it claims to have employed by them,
Sh J S Kahaan informed that in most of the cases, premises are given out on
rent without informing the High Court and salaries etc are paid from said
receipts out of unauthorized rental use of premises.
For information
and necessary action.
CA KD Aggarwal
Advocate
