https://www.indianvoice.org/can-we-get-justice-in-our-petition.html
Date: 07-04-2013.
To,
Hon’ble Chairman of Law Commission of India.
Hon’ble President of India.
Hon’ble Speaker of LokSabha.
Hon’ble Law Minister of India.
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
Hon’ble Chief Justices of Various Hon’ble High Courts in India.
Hon’ble Chairman of Bar Council of India.
Hon’ble Chariman Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa.
Distinguished Members of Press.
SUBJECT: CAN WE GET JUSTICE IN OUR OWN COUNTRY? ONE COUNTRY, TWO LAWS.......
Respected Sir’s / Madam’s,
Pertaining to the above subject, I am submitting the Proof that, in our own country, we have two set of laws, One for Poor People and the other for Rich People.
This case started with my illegal termination by Standard Chartered Bank.
I contested the same before CGIT-II (Mumbai) and the Hon’ble CGIT – II was pleased to make the Award. The Standard Chartered Bank was directed to reinstate my services with full back wages.
The Bank filled a WP No 975 of 2009 and the order was set aside. I went in Appeal no 67 of 2010, before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
In Appeal No 67 of 2010, on 15.06.2010, Mr. J.P. Cama (Sr. Advocate) along with Mr. Ashok D Shetty, tendered an Affidavit in the open court and handed over a un affirmed copy of the same to me.
Subsequently, I filled my reply affidavit on 15.09.2010 in the registry of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. A copy of the same was handed over to Advocate (Ms.) Rita K Joshi.
Again on 27.09.2010, Mr. J.P. Cama (Sr. Advocate) tendered another affidavit and this time he did not gave a copy of this Affidavit to me. I took an Objection that he has already filled an affidavit on 15.06.2010, and I have filed a counter to that, then how he can file another affidavit.
The First Affidavit filed by Mr. J.P.Cama was missing from the Court’s File and many times, I had written to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Maharashtra & Goa and the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (by Email’s, Letters and Faxes).
I had to apply for a certified copy of this affidavit and upon the receipt of the certified copy of the same; I could see that there were a Lot of Changes in the Second Affidavit.
This was a “Professional Misconduct” done by Mr. J.P. Cama, & Mr. A.D. Shetty. I had filed a complaint U/S 35 of Indian Advocate Act, 1935. The Complaint came to be known as DC No 232 of 2010.
The Copy of the D.C. No 232 of 2010 is marked herein as “Exhibit A”.
Mr. J.P. Cama and Mr. A.D. Shetty filled there reply affidavit in D.C. No 232 of 2010.
The Reply Affidavit of Mr. A.D. Shetty is marked herein as “Exhibit B” and of Mr. J.P. Cama is marked herein as “Exhibit C”.
In his reply affidavit Mr. A.D. Shetty at Para No L disposed that “I say that when the matter again came up for hearing on the adjourned date on 15.06.2010 at 3.00PM, the affidavit though ready was not affirmed as Ms. Lavina Das the officer of the bank who was to affirm the affidavit could not come to the court in time. Hence the affidavit could not be filed on that day. Nevertheless a un affirmed copy of the same was given to the complainant but she sought time to file her rejoinder to the same. Mr. J.P. Cama, for brevity accepted all the contents in the affidavit of Mr. A.D. Shetty”.
Legal Submission:
The above statement of Mr. A.D. Shetty is false. Ms. Lavina Dass came to the court on 15.06.2010 and the affidavit was affirmed at the counter of Hon’ble High Court.
To prove this, I had applied for the certified copy of the Affirmation Records (of 15.06.2010) of Hon’ble High court of Bombay.
The copy of the Affirmation record is marked as “Exhibit D”.
· As per “Section 106” of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Burden of Proof was on me to prove that the affidavit was affirmed and I successfully discharged the same by producing the “Affirmation Records” of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
· This affirmation record confirms to “Section 35” of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
· As per “Section 114” of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If there is an Affirmation Entry in the Affirmation record Register, The Bar / Court can presume that the Affidavit was affirmed on 15.06.2010. Hence, it can be proved that Mr. A.D. Shetty was making False Statement on Affidavit.
· The Letter received from Bar Council of Maharashtra is marked herein as “Exhibit E”. In the said letter it is clearly mentioned that after the arguments in D.C. No 232 of 2010, It appears that after the order dated 20.07.2011, Respondent No 2, Mr. A.D. Shetty filed a compilation of document on 25.07.2011 and the complainant had filed submission on Affirmation record Register on 23.08.2011. It is therefore necessary to hear the matter further and accordingly the matter is placed for hearing on 26.09.2011 at 5.00 PM.
The Following Question Arise out of this letter.
Ø Why Mr. A.D. Shetty did file a compilation of document prior to me filling affirmation record register?. It is submitted that this compilation of document consist of false Affidavit of Mr. Praful G Salvi (A Registered Court Clerk of Mr. A.D. Shetty). It is also submitted that this compilation of document was submitted by Advocate (Mrs.) Rita K Joshi, Who was appearing for Mr. J.P. Cama (Sr. Advocate). Mr. Shetty was appearing in Person.
Ø How the Accused Advocates did came to know that I was going to file a True copy of Affirmation Record Register?
Ø Was I being followed?
· I had sent a letter to Various Competent Authorities; the same is marked herein as “Exhibit F”.
· The Affidavit of Mr. Praful G Salvi is marked Herein as “Exhibit G”.
· The Affidavit of Mr. Praful G Salvi, is False and he has been abetted for sign such a false affidavit by Advocate Ms. Rita K Joshi & Sr. Advocate Mr. J.P. Cama.
· This affidavit is contrary to the Rules mentioned in Chapter XII of the Original Side Rules of Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai.
The real reason for filling this Affidavit.
Ø Before the SLP No 4217-18 of 2011, there was a disciplinary case (D.C. No 232 of 2010) which was filed against Mr. J.P. Cama and Mr. A.D. Shetty.
Ø On 27.01.2011, Mr. A.D. Shetty tendered his affidavit in the Bar Council of Maharashtra and on Para No L ( Annexure P -7 ), he disposed that I say that when the matter again came up for hearing on the adjourned date on 15.06.2010 at 3.00PM, the affidavit though ready was not affirmed as Ms. Lavina Das the officer of the bank who was to affirm the affidavit could not come to the court in time. Hence the affidavit could not be filed on that day. Nevertheless a unaffirmed copy of the same was given to the complainant but she sought time to file her rejoinder to the same. Mr. J.P. Cama, for brevity accepted all the contents in the affidavit of Mr. A.D. Shetty.
Ø On 4.4.2011, the Hon’ble Supreme court was pleased to issue notice and directed the respondent to file a reply in weeks and another four weeks were granted to file the rejoinder.
Ø On 2nd July 2011, Mr. Vikrant Gruha affirmed the Reply Affidavit at Delhi and the Bank sent there reply to me by Post. On 11.07.2011, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted me, four weeks time to file the rejoinder and the matter to be listed thereafter.
Ø Since the Advocates (Mr. J.P. Cama and Mr. A.D. Shetty) on 27.01.2011 had taken a stance in there affidavit that Lavina Das did not come to the court on time. Since the Bank had the same Advocates and the advocates knew if they take any other stand in SLP No 4217-4218 of 2011, the question of law on Affidavits will get approved and the SLP will get allowed. The Advocates also knew that changing the stand in SLP will make them Liable to be punished in D.C. No 232 of 2010, which was filed earlier to SLP No 4217-18 of 2011.
Ø This prevented them from taking different stand in the SLP No 4217-18 of 2011 and on Page no 35-37 of SLP, They made Mr. Vikrant Gruha dispose the same. On Page No 35-37, Mr. Vikrant Gruha, also mentioned that “I say that when the matter again came up for hearing on the adjourned date on 15.06.2010 at 3.00PM, the affidavit though ready was not affirmed as Ms. Lavina Das the officer of the bank who was to affirm the affidavit could not come to the court in time. Hence the affidavit could not be filed on that day. Nevertheless a un affirmed copy of was given to the complainant but she sought time to file her rejoinder to the same.
Ø Mr. Vikrant Gruha, who is head HR and Constituted Attorney, was based in Delhi and the Incident of Affidavit happened in Mumbai. How did he come to know that Lavina Das did not come to the court on time. It is to be noted that Lavina Das was an employee of the bank from Sep 2004 till June 2011. Hence Vikrant Gruha knowingly disposed falsely that Ms. Lavina Dass did not come to the court on time.
Ø Neither the Advocates, Nor the Bank had ever imagined that, I will demand for the Affirmation record Register from the Hon’ble High court and only upon the intervention of the Hon’ble Supreme court, I got the true copy of the affirmation register of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The Affirmation Register records are confirming to Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Ø Senior Advocate Mr. J.P. Cama was worried, because if I produce the Affirmation Register copy in the bar, he will be in trouble at Bar. Hence he directed his Advocate Rita K Joshi ( Who was the defense counsel of Mr. J.P. Cama) to abet Mr. Praful G Salvi ( Court Clerk of Mr. A.D. Shetty) and get an affidavit signed by him and tender the same on behalf of Mr. A.D. Shetty. Mr. J.P. Cama was so uncomfortable that he asked Rita K Joshi to file Affidavit of Praful G Salvi ( On Behalf of Mr. A.D. Shetty). Along with the List of Documents they filed the affidavit of Praful G Salvi on 25.07.2011 and the Petitioner Filed the Affirmation record on 23.08.2011. Hence the guilt of these Advocates is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Ø Advocate Mr. A.D. Shetty was appearing in person and on 25.07.2011, Advocate Mrs. Rita K Joshi, by her had written Letter requested Bar Council of Maharashtra to take the compilation of record on Board. The Question which arises, why did Mr. Ashok Shetty file this compilation by himself? Why did Advocate Ms. Rita K Joshi, filled this Compilation of documents in the name of Mr. A.D. Shetty, when she was appearing for Mr. J.P. Cama? Who compelled Mr. Praful G Salvi to file Such a False Affidavit, that it was he who made the entry when he cannot do so?
Factual Submission:
· I had to prove that the Affidavit of Mr. Praful G Salvi was a False Affidavit.
· I wrote a Letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Maharashtra & the Prothonotary of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on 06.02.2011 and on 14th Feb 2011, the Learned Prothonotary had replied to this letter. The Copy of this letter from prothonotary is marked herein as “Exhibit H”.
· The “Exhibit H” is Sufficient to prove that the Affidavit of Mr. Praful G Salvi, filed by Ms. Rita K Joshi is False.
o Because it has been confirmed by the Prothonotary, that Writing in the Affirmation record register is that of the Affirmation Officer and is not of Mr. Praful G Salvi.
o The Other Reason for this affidavit to be false is Section 42 of Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. Cancellation of Stamps. No Document requiring a stamp under this act shall be filed or acted upon in any proceeding in an court of office until the stamp has been cancelled. Such Officer as the court or head of office may from time to time shall, on receiving any such document, forthwith effect such cancellation by punching out figure-head so as to leave the amount designated on the stamp untouched, and the part removed by punching shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed.
o The above section has been incorporated in Chapter III of Bombay High court original Side Rules. Rule No 34: Account of Stamps – The Officers of the court shall keep an account of all stamps cancelled in their respective offices, specifying the value thereof. In this case the Affirmation officer first Affirmed the Affidavit, Cancelled the Stamp and then made the record in the Affirmation Register. It is proved that Affidavit was affirmed on 15.06.2010.
o Above All rule 8, Chapter III, Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Identity of Declarant – The Officer, before administering oath or affirmation and certifying the affidavit, shall satisfy himself as to the identity of the declarant who shall be either known (or whose identity is duly established to the satisfaction of the officer by any of the following documents, namely passport, driving license, voters identify card, PAN Card or Photo Identity Card, issued by any government department) before him by a person who he personally knows. The manner in which the identification is made shall be citified by the officer administering oath. This means that Either Lavina Dass came to court for affirming the affidavit or someone else was identified as Lavina Dass. However the Affidavit was affirmed for sure, which is contrary to the claim of Mr. A.D. Shetty, Mr. J.P. Cama and Mrs. Rita K Joshi.
o It is also to be noted that an Affirmation officer is appointed as per the Chapter XII Rule No 197 of the Original Side Rules and This affirmation officer has to make an entry into the Affirmation record Register as Per the Rule No 34.
o Hence the affidavit of Mr. Praful G Salvi is false and is a Punishable offence under Indian Penal Code.
o Subsequently I wrote a Letter to the Prothonoatry on 19.07.2012. The Letter is marked herein as “Exhibit I”
· Despite of all the above Evidences and the Rules of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, The Bar Council discarded the Evidence confirming to Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act and this Evidence was discarded based on the false Affidavit of Mr. Praful G Salvi.
· The Order of the Bar Council of Maharashtra, which has was passed by the Hon’ble Member Mr. Anil C Singh is marked herein as “Exhibit J”.
· The Bar Council of Maharashtra despite of such strong evidences against Mr. J.P. Cama, Mr. A.D. Shetty discharged these Advocates. This act is arbitrary and is in contravention to various laws enacted and approved by the Legislature.
· Subsequently, I filed a writ Petition against the Bar Council of Maharashtra and the same got dismissed by the Hon’ble Bombay High court on the grounds that I have an option to appeal before the Bar Council of India and the Hon’ble Court cannot express any opinion for the same.
Before I Go further, I would like to cite Some Judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which are covering the definition of Misconduct.
“Misconduct” – Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 35 & 38. Misconduct has not been defined in the Advocate act, 1961. Misconduct, inter alia, envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute conduct and indiscipline, which however is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally, It means, “improper behaviour, intentional wrong doing or deliberate violation of a rule or standard of behaviour”. Misconduct is said to be a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand: it is a Violation of definite law. (Paras No 7 & 8) Noratanmal Chouraria Vs. M.R. Murli, (2004) 5 SCC 689: AIR 2004 SC 2440: (2004) 3 SLR 644. Bench Strength: 3 V.N. Khare C.J, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia JJ. Date of Decision: 16-4-2004.
“Misconduct” – Advocates Act, 1961 – S .35 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or.3R.4(2) – Constitution of India – Art. 22 (1) – Criminal procedure code 1973 – S. 303 – Bar Council of India Rules – Pt. Vi Ch II Rr.24,28,29 – Contract Act, 1872 – Ss. 171 and 148 R/w Sales of Goods Act, 1930 – S 2(7).
Refusal to return case files when demanded by client, amount to professional misconduct.
The Word Misconduct is a relative term. It has to be considered with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein such terms occur. It literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct (Para 19).
For understanding the import of the expression “misconduct” in the context in which it is referred to in section 35 of the Advoactes act a wide canvas should be adopted. (para 22).
Corpus Juris Secundum contains the following passage at P. 740 (Vol 7):
“Professional misconduct may consist in betraying the confidence of a client, in attempting by means to practice a fraud or impose on or deceive the court or the adverse party or his counsel, and in fact in any conduct which tends to bring reproach on the legal profession or to alinenate the favourable opinion which the public should entertain concerning it.” (Para 20). R.D. Saxena V. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264: AIR 2000 SC 2912: (2000) 163 CTR32. Bench Strength 2. Coram : K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi. JJ (Date of decision: 22-08-2000)
“Misconduct” The word “Misconduct” though not capable of precise definition, on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour: unlawful behaviour, wilful character: forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgement, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty: the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character . Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being has to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. State of Punjab Vs. Ex-Constable Ram Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 54: 1992 SCC (L&S) 793: (1192) 21 ATC 435: AIR 1992 SC 2188. Bench Strength 3. Coram: A.M. Ahmadi, M.M. Punchhi and K Ramaswamy JJJ. (Date of Decision : 24-7-1992).
“Professional Misconduct” – Advocates Act, 1961 S. 35 (1)
The test to determine “Professional Misconduct” within the meaning of the S.35 (1) is whether the proved misconduct of the advocate is such that he must be regarded as unworthy to remain a member of the Hon’ble Profession to which he has been admitted, and unfit to be entrusted with the responsible duties that an advocate is called to perform. Pandurang Dattatraya Khandear V Bar Council of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 556: 1984 SCC (Cri) 335: AIR 1984 SC 110. Bench Strength 3. Coram A.P. Sen, E.S. Venkataramiah and R.B. Mishra, JJ (Date of Decision: 20-10-1983).
All the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court confirm the definition of Misconduct or Professional Misconduct. The Following misconduct has been done by Mr. J.P. Cama & Mr. A.D. Shetty :-
1. Violation of Rule No 645 of the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. No Further Affidavit allowed - No Further Affidavit or affidavits shall be filed by any party, except with the leave of the court.
a. First they filed a Affidavit in the open court on 15.06.2010 in Appeal No 67 of 2010 and handed over an Un affirmed affidavit.
b. Then when I filed, a Counter affidavit in the Registry of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 15.09.2010, The Accused Advocates filed a modified Affidavit on 27.09.2010.
c. This is act of playing a Fraud upon the Hon’ble Court.
d. Then they took a Contrary stand that the Affidavit was not affirmed.
e. When I proved that the Affidavit was affirmed, they filed a False Affidavit of Mr. Praful G Salvi.
f. This Act of these Advocates is an Act of Abetment of Mr. Praful G Salvi to file a false affidavit.
g. It is an Act of Moral Turpitude.
Despite of all the evidences against these Advocates, The Bar Council of Maharashtra discharged these Advocates and held that they have not committed any misconduct.
After this I had sent some email / Letter to various competent authorities. The same is being marked herein as “Exhibit K”.
The Act of Tendering a False Affidavit in the D.C. No 232 of 2010 was a Professional Misconduct as the same was an act of Moral Turpitude, hence I had filled another DC with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa. The same came to be numbered as D.C. No 116 of 2012.
· The DC No 116 of 2012 is being marked herein as “Exhibit L”.
· The Reply to this DC No 116 of 2012 filed by
o Mr. J.P. Cama is being marked herein as “Exhibit M”.
o Mr. A.D. Shetty is being marked herein as “Exhibit N”.
o Mrs. Rita K Joshi is being marked herein as “Exhibit O”.
o A letter sent to Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa and other legal Authorities is being Marked herein as “Exhibit P”.
o I had written to the Hon’ble President of India to invoke Article 143. The Same is being marked herein as “Exhibit Q”.
o The Hon’ble President of India had acted on the above letter and directed the Bar Council to take action. The proof of the same is being marked herein as “Exhibit R”.
o I am marking my written arguments submitted to Bar Council of Maharashtra in DC No 116 of 2012 as “Exhibit S”.
· Despite of all these proofs, The Bar Council of Maharashtra which consists of the best of the Lawyers and the Hon’ble members dismissed the D C No 116 of 2012 saying that my compliant could not disclose any reasons of Professional misconduct or other misconduct. The same is being marked herein as “Exhibit T”.
This act of Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa is arbitrary and has been made only to Protect Few Members of their own family.
Instead of upholding the law, they have upholed Friendship, Arbitrariness.
I would request all of your kindself to interfere in this matter for upholding the Law, Constitution of India.
It cannot be said that all the Laws (Indian Evidence Act, Bombay High Court Rules Original and Appellate Side, Constitution of India and Indian Advocate Act) can be held at Ransom to save three people who despite of being Advocates have broken the Law many Times.
Thanking you in anticipation that at the end of this Tunnel “Justice Prevails over Injustice”.
Best Regards,
Vandana Joshi.
Petitioner in Person.
