Validity of civil court judgement in criminal court
VISHNU
(Querist) 09 August 2011
This query is : Resolved
sIR
1. The judgment on a particular point delivered by competent civil court between same parties is bindng on criminal court?
Pls elaborate this point on settled case law.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 August 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (Civil) NO OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF: “Unjustified, untenable obstruction to an honest scientist”
Sh. P. Suresh, Scientist
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)
#2, Rafi Marg, Anusandhan Bhawan (A.Bhawan)
Delhi – 1 … Applicant (A)
Resi: C/o G-92, Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar, Delhi – 76 (psuresh1111@indiatimes.com)
Versus
1. Director General -----R-1
CSIR, #2, Rafi Marg, A. Bhawan, Delhi - 1
2. Officer-In-Charge -----R-2
CSIR, #2, Rafi Marg, A. Bhawan, Delhi - 1
3. Unit for Science Dissemination -----R-3
CSIR, #2, Rafi Marg, A. Bhawan, Delhi - 1
4. Sh. Samir Kumar Brahmachari, Scientist -----R-4
CSIR, #2, Rafi Marg, A. Bhawan, Delhi - 1
5. Sh. Daljit Singh Bedi, Scientist -----R-5
CSIR, #2, Rafi Marg, A. Bhawan, Delhi - 1
6. Sh. Sheoraj Singh, Pensioner (Through R-2) -----R-6
CSIR, #2, Rafi Marg, A. Bhawan, Delhi - 1
7. Sh. S.C. Kalra, Former Secretary to DG-CSIR, CSIR, #2, Rafi Marg, A. Bhawan, Delhi - 1 (Through R-2)
-----R-7
8. Sh. Ram Sarup, Officer-In-Charge (Through R-2)-R-8
CSIR, #2, Rafi Marg, A. Bhawan, Delhi - 1
9. Sh. Praveen Sarup, Advocate -----R-9
25, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India,
Delhi-1 … Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
READ WITH:
1. COURT ORDER IN OA 1225/10; CAT-PB;
2. CAT’s RULE ON No Objection Certificate FOR ADJOURNMENT, ORDER 47 (Adjournment)OF C.P.C
3. RULE 11 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT (CAT) RULES, 1992
4. RULES 12(1) (Filing first time reply with registry), 12(4) (Serving first time reply on opponent well before court proceedings) OF CAT (PROCEDURE) RULES, 1987;
5. RULES 3(i) (Current Authentic Address), 5 (Entry of Date, Place etc details on reply), 61 (Appearance of lawyer) of CAT Rules of Practice, 1993.
6. SECTIONS 193 (Punishment for false evidence) or any other law for PERJURY for illegalities as defined in 191(False affidavit), 196 (Using evidence known to be false), 199 (False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence) of IPC.
FOR A WRIT TO:
i). REVOKE THE CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT IN CP 660/10 FOR FAILURE TO KEEP WITH PROMISE TO COURT IN COURT
ii). QUASH PROCEEDS IN CP 660/10
iii). DECIDE AS ON DAY-1 IN CP 660/10 WHEN THE LEGAL POSITION STANDS AS: “AFTER ORDER IN OA, NO REPLY, AFTER CONTEMPT NOTICE, NO REPLY, READY FOR JUDGMENT” and
iv). Punish respondents for PERJURY.
FOR FOLLOWING REASONS:
a). R MADE ILLEGAL APPEARANCES.
b). GOT A CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT ILLEGALLY.
c). RESORTED TO MORE ILLEGALITIES, SUBMITTED A FALSE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON OATH THAT MISREPRESENTS THE VERY ORDER THAT SET R TO RESPOND.
d). RESORTED TO SAME TRICKS IN NEXT CONTEMPT PETITION, SUBMITTED A FALSE AFFIDAVIT ON OATH THAT MISREPRESENTS THE VERY CONTEMPT PETITION.
d). AND HAS BEEN BOLDY REVERTING TO MORE AND MORE INJUSTICES THAT HAVE DERAILED JUSTICE ONCE FOR ALL.
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court
Of Delhi and His Hon’ble Companion Justice
Of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
The Humble Petition of the Petitioner, above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. A is a meritorious, ingenious scientist, steadfast patriot, personality of considerable repute in office, circles that matter, society at large. Accolades speak to themselves and can be made available if needed.
2. He has been associated with this very CSIR since 1993 and has had 3 stints earlier. This 4th stint is the only well provided stint that has got presented to him and he has got selected to this office through most honest, transparent of means in full view of the entire nation, all at the age of 36. A wants to make it to the top most post in CSIR and the nation through shear dent of hard work, meaningful contributions despite his career having got drastically truncated for no fault of his at all.
3. Despite unpalatable terms and conditions, A took it up as a challenge and decided to do his best to the cause of the nation and hopes that the nation would do justice to the sacrifices, high order contributions. Factually, he has numerous accomplishments to his credit and has won accolades from several seniors. Prominent amongst them are the ones from DG-CSIR (the performance reviewer both to R-5 and A), Advisor to Minister of Science and Technology, Science Secretary to DG-CSIR, Several Directors/Heads of departments etc.
4. Akin to nectar attracting bees, A’s dedication, accomplishments, ingeniousness, plans get him pangs from several individuals, vested interests.
5. Amongst several such vested interests, an individual who authorisedly impersonated on false name, R-6; R-5; vested interests and their kith and kin, are the most prominent amongst those who bother A immensely. A was, is subjected to most inhumane treatments: food poison, bad mouth, tortures, intrusions into locked premises, isolated acts of terrror etc.
6. While A kept steady stead and made sufficient inroads by adding credit worthy accomplishments to his kitty despite lot of shakes, R at large and individuals above named specifically, tortured A to create posts here, there or somewhere on A’s aegis. A turned it down, will turn it down.
7. R abruptly used muscle power on A on Oct 30, 08. A was expecting a double or triple promotion at that point of time. A was embezzled at this as there were no charges, deficiencies, inquiry at him. Aggrieved by this, A tried his best to get due justice. R neither gave relief, nor any reason.
8. A then made a detailed representation on Nov 25, 2008. On not having got having any relief/reason even after about 19 months, A filed OA with CAT. CAT pronounced an order in OA on Apr 15, 2010.
9. Given fact that R has deliberately, abruptly brought all miseries to A, fact that R has put A to such a pathetic position where A got stagnated by this abrupt blockade and the fact that A was in such a hopeless situation that A could not produce any other document other than postal receipt for representation, this order serves as the fundamental edifice of the case. Every word, every aspect of this order makes all the difference for justice in the case.
10. R deliberately did not comply with the order. Given the background that R has already taken 22 plus months, there is no tenable reason whatsoever for this. Court issued contempt notice. A once again did not respond and has ever since delayed, compounded justice through one or other trick.
11. R has resorted to such heinous acts that put elite to shame. While A has filed 2 CPs, R has caused even 3rd contempt that is not yet contested.
12. R used his aegis and filed the first RTI in his life. Both the query and the reply are enclosed herein. It clearly shows sort of dubious acts that R has resorted to cheat law itself. Further elucidation on R’s illegalities can be found in other segments.
13. Somehow, CAT and its insiders have failed in their own duties, have rendered it impossible for A to get justice in A’s initiatives at CAT.
A has hence placed all these at the fore of this elite law body with an explicit request that A needs immediate relief as losses that R is incurring on A by way of this illegal blockade to his own hard earned, well served office cannot be compensated by money to the already truncated, highly promising career.
Other reliefs to A and punishment to R for violating A’s fundamental rights: livelihood, job; spoiling A’s stature, prestige and indulging in other heinous crimes. While injustice is crime when viewed objectively and suffices clause, ‘Rarest of rare’ that justifies the ultimate punishment; crimes: contempt of court, perjury are very obvious and may be duly punished.
-------xxxxx-------
Most important evidence AFTER CAT has pronounced final order:
CAT’s RTI reply Dt: June 7, 2011. (Both query and reply are enclosed - Annexure A-1 and A-2). – The query is distinctly segmented and distinctly proves GLARING illegalities have occurred, rules have been violated, fundamental essentialities have not been with both in CP-1 and CP-2. These helped R submit false affidavits on oath, subvert justice and get abrupt, court orders that suits R’s illegal cause.
What does this important evidence (NEW) conclusively prove?
Lower court:
1. Violated very fundamental laws that govern a case at 3 decisive milestones:
1. CP-1, Day-1 (Sep 30, 2010);
2. CP-1, Day-2 (Oct 4, 2010) and
3. CP-2 (Jan 4, 2010)
2. Did not even complete minimal procedures of court on both the occasions when orders were pronounced in CPs.
3. Has failed to enforce promise that R made to court in court which court guaranteed.
4. Has compounded injustice by not deliberating/ analysing issues on hand as per legal provisions.
5. It has straight away accepted R’s false averments, submission/affidavit etc and has pronounced orders in both CPs abruptly.
6. Violated A’s fundamental right for a fair trial.
7. Violated, bent well established rules, procedures.
Then, how did R succeed?:
* Hit and run technique: Plan meticulously to USE different officials, cheat and get away unnoticed.
* Made illegal appearance, resorted to theatrics, made promise to court in court when judge turned down the illegal chap’s pleas, and forced the judge to give relief, which is what this conditional adjournment in CP-1 on Sep 30, 10 is. It may be noted that it is NOT normal, fully legal adjournment.
* Next day, the judge who gave adjournment did not chair the court. R violated fundamental court rules, resorted to tricks, indulged in glaring illegalities, bypassed mandatory legal checks, pushed through stealthily and escaped being caught.
* Submitted FALSE AFFIDAVITS on oath in both CPs and pushed illegality as truth. These are Perjury-1 and Perjury-2 in the case.
* Used fabricated documents as bonafide certificates.
Facts of case:
1. R caused illegal blockage to A on Oct 30, 2008. On having failed to get relief/reason for this abrupt violence, A preferred detailed representation to DG-CSIR on Nov 25, 2008 – Page 190à222 of OA.
2. R did not give any relief/reason even after the complaint was preferred. After 18 months, A filed OA in CAT. – Volume 1 & 2 of this writ.
3. CAT pronounced order in OA On Apr 15, 2010. – Annexure, A-4.
4. Due date to comply with order in OA was July 21, 2010. – Annexure, A-7.
5. R did not comply with the court order and did not file compliance report with CAT registry along with requisite proof for having complied by the court order. – Items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 of Annexure, A-1, RTI query.
6. A filed CP 660/10. CAT issued contempt notice on Aug 30, 2010. – Annexure A-5.
7. R did not file reply even to contempt notice. – Items 2.1, 2.1 of A-1, RTI query.
8. Legal position as on 30.9.10 i.e. CP-1, Day-1: “After order in OA, No reply, After contempt notice in CP-1, No reply, Ready for judgment”.
9. R made an illegal appearance on scheduled day. Justice SD Anand (SDA) was not happy at so much of delays, illegalities, failures and wanted to pronounce the order. This illegal chap then resorted to theatrics, assured court that R understood what court message was (i.e. order that was about to be pronounced) and promised court in court that R would give that justice to A without any more court order. Justice Anand then issued strictEST warning at doing any more injustice to A and issued conditional adjournment.
10. Unfortunately Justice Anand turned out to be from CAT, Chandigarh bench. SDA did not chair the court on Day-2. R, a professional knew this on Day-1 itself. This is R’s precise plan, a technique of using different authorities to advance R’s own causes whether right or wrong, ethical or not.
11. R did not honor promise to court in court. R committed another contempt of court.
12. Further, R violated fundamental rules that govern court proceedings. R did not serve the first ever reply well ahead of court proceeding on A (the opposite party). R did not even file the first ever reply with court registry. – Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.7 of A-1, RTI query distinctly proves this fact.
13. While court issued contempt notice to 5 private respondents, only C-5 made a written submission and this first ever submission was made directly to court in court by hand.
14. While Rule 11 of Contempt of court (CAT) act, 1992 makes it mandatory for this first time reply in a contempt notice to be a legal, valid affidavit; this so called reply is not even a legally valid reply.
15. Further R has MISREPRESENTED the very court order that is causing R to respond after about 22 months. Analysis shows that R has provided a wrong connotation to the order itself. While the court order asks R to decide on A’s representation in accordance with law and inform A by due date (21.7.10), R has contended that it has mandated R to decide by 21.7.10. – Annexure A-7.
This is thus perjury under IPC 191(False affidavit), 199 (False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence).
Owing to deficiencies in documentation, communication per se, it is just impossible to recap the whole of the chaos that R’s mob created in the court on that day. It is pertinent to note that amidst so much of high profile professional drama, a written assertion has an impact on order. This is exactly what happened in court.
16. In R’s illegal submission, R fabricated a non-existent communiqué, a purported csir order dt: 21.7.10 during the period of adjournment and claimed it to be R’s response to A’s representation dt. 25.11.08.
It is pertinent to record that R has not given it to A despite court order and having had all that it takes to comply with the order.
Further, compliance report is hardly anything. The two page communiqué needs to be filed along with proofs with court registry. But, R has not.
17. Instead of all these, R cleverly enclosed it as Annexure in reply that R illegally submitted to court by hand, which submission in itself is a serious violation of court rules.
18. Now it is worth recall that the court order that has caused R to respond after 22 months has set ‘NON-MERITS’ to be the basis of the case.
In wake of this fact, the annexure in so called reply in CP-1 that is under question needs analysis:
1. R claims it to be reply to A’s representation dt: 25.11.08 and in compliance with court order, has advanced some untenable arguments about it and has even fabricated untenable evidence.
2. It is a two page photocopy of a purported csir communiqué dt: 21.7.2010. – Annexure, A-11.
3. It did not exist in OA and even in CP-1, Day-1. – Items 1.1à1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.7 of Annexure, A-1, RTI query proves this fact distinctly.
4. That is why R resorted to illegalities, made an illegal appearance, resorted to all tricks under the sun and got a conditional adjournment.
5. Very date of this purported communiqué, i.e. 21.7.10 makes mockery of court order that caused R to respond to A’s representation after about 22 months.
The due date i.e. the very last date to comply with the court order was 21.7.10 - Annexure A-7.
But, this purported communiqué is itself dt: 21.7.10. Did it reach A on the very same day?
Facts that it was about 22 months and that court had issued an order, it is very obvious that there cannot be any further extension in the deadline to comply with the order.
6. It contains wrong addresses: In his representation, A has provided his address as on 25.11.08 and in very next line, A has expressly recorded that he would change the room – Annexure A-8, i.e. Page 220 of OA.
Apart from being in constant touch with R through one or other ethically correct means, A has updated his address – Annexure, A-9.
7. R never gave it to A in a legally tenable manner in accordance with court order despite having all that was needed to comply by it.
Instead, R gave it to A in the most inapt, deceitful manner by creating chaos, resorted to backdoor means and has enclosed this fabrication as Annexure in A-7. By doing so, R created more trauma to A and expected dividends out of it.
19. R neither decided in accordance with law, nor reached a reply to A for his representation by the due date as was ordered. That is why court issued contempt notice on Aug 30, 10.
20. While the case has no counsel (evident from Items 2.3, 2.4 of Item A-1), R made an illegal appearance through an illegal chap, who pronounced to be PROXY counsel. This chap turned to theatrics, promised to be just to A, begged for opportunity and got a conditional adjournment.
21. Factually, as R violated fundamental rules that govern a case and neither provided the opposite party the first ever reply well before the court proceedings, nor submitted it to court registry, R could escape being caught then and there.
Let alone being able to add value to the court proceedings, A could not even know what R contended in his reply on day-2.
Unfortunately, CAT forgot its duty to implement promise that it vouched on day-1.
Never-the-less, the harm got done. R’s illegality cast its spell, influenced CAT to make a U turn just in a jiffy, all based on false submission.– Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.7 of A-1, RTI query.
22. Amidst chaos, high profile drama, impressive march past by R’s dandy appearing, paid mob; CAT failed to implement the promise that it vetted, turned blind at violation of fundamental principles of court and violated court rules by itself. Not just that, it did not even conduct a fair trial, but accepted a deceptive, well camouflaged submission and even abruptly pronounced order in CP 660/10. – A-10 - The impugned order.
23. On having met with humiliation and exponentially heightened injustice, A conducted postpartum of the case and analysed R’s reply, the case in entirety and discovered that R has grossly MISREPRESENTED court order itself. A filed CP 874/10 (CP-2). CAT issued contempt notice on Nov 25, 10. It gave 10 extra days than what is permissible. This contempt notice distinctly records that it is ‘Prima Facie contempt’ – Annex, A-12.
24. R once again violated fundamental, mandatory rules that govern a case and neither served the first ever reply to A (opponent), nor filed it with court registry. – Items 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of Annexure, A-1, RTI query.
25. R once again submitted the first ever reply directly to court by hand. Strangely, CAT accepted it. By doing so, CAT violated court rule by itself. –Items 3.1è3.3 of Annex, A-1, RTI query.
26. Once again A was in total dark as to what R had contended and was handicapped in participating in the case. Once again CAT accepted R’s contention without an apt trial, pronounced the order in CP-2 and closed it abruptly.-Annex, A-15.
27. Once again, R’s reply could be analysed only later on. It conclusively establishes that R has submitted a false affidavit, wherein R has misled court into believing that CP 874/10 (CP-2) is same as CP 660/10 (CP-1) and that it is Resjudicata. – Annexure, A-13
28. Factually, CP-2 is not Resjudicata as R illegally alleges. – Annexure, A-14 proves it. By asserting that CP-2 is Resjudicata, R has MISREPRESENTED CP-2 and is another (new) cognizable contempt.
29. In the meantime, A filed RTI applications and simultaneously filed MA 1017/11 and RA 121/11 to revive CP-1 and CP-2 respectively.
30. While both MA and RA are strictly in conformance with law, CAT abused A in court in MA 1017/2011 for having filed the review application and closed it. – Annexure, A-16.
31. RA 121/11 was the last hope for justice in CAT within steps initiated in CAT thus far. Justice in this case would have enabled A get full justice.
CAT has two channels for review. While 1st channel is applicable to cases where CAT has heard the case in detail, alternate channel is applicable in case where something serious emerges.
A made detailed complaint to Registrar and has personally presented proof of that. Registrar has assured that the matter would be placed before Chairman’s court in accordance with rules before processing this RA. Request was placed to keep the RA on hold until further directions from Registrar.
32. While all preparations were on to present the new evidences that have been unearthed, since the time of order in CP-2 before the Chairman’s court seeking apt directions to process the last lifeline, RA; personnel in CAT registry hurriedly processed it in violation of Registrar’s assurances and got orders in this RA by circulating it to the same bench. - Annexure, A-17, order in RA121/11.
33. A-17 records that it has deliberated upon facts, truth of which can be seen by the very fact that R did not even give the reply to A at time of court proceedings. Is it fair to project mere presence as equivalent of participation? But, A’s presence has got projected in this way. Is it fair trial?
Questions in law:
Note: In this entire case document all references/ questions pertaining CAT are meant to stress points in context of the case and is not disrespect to CAT.
1. How is R’s illegal appearance in contempt proceeding, CP-1, Day-1 valid?
* Legal position on this day is: “After order in OA, No reply, After contempt notice, No reply, Ready for judgment”. Thus, this is the legally correct day for judgment in the case.
* There is no vakalatnama, memo of appearance. – Items 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 of Annexure, A-1, RTI query proves this fact distinctly. – It distinctly proves that no counsel is allowed for R.
* Court’s daily cause list for the day also clearly shows that there is no counsel for R. (Proof can be found in CP-2, MA, RA i.e. Vol 2 and Vol 3 of this Writ).
* Yet, CAT officials have allowed an illegal, unscheduled stranger to appear for R as a PROXY counsel. This one breach of protocol, dereliction of duty on part of CAT officials has cost justice v.v……v.v. dearly.
Violations: Rules 3(vi), 42c(i) read in conjunction with Rules 61, 62 of CAT Rules of practice, 1993.
2. How is adjournment (CP-1, Day-1) valid?
* CAT rules for adjournment distinctly makes it mandatory to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate (NOC)” from opposite party in writing at least two days ahead of scheduled date.
* R neither approached A, nor did A give the NOC. Factually A opposed it when R suddenly, abruptly, shockingly sought it half way through.
* Court order that is causing R to respond after 22 plus months distinctly records this fact and the harm that it is causing. Despite this fact, the court gave R full three months time to comply with its order.
* R had got further time by way of notice period in contempt proceedings.
* Court contempt notice (nothing less) distinctly records the date, 30.9.10 for proceedings.
* R deliberately used an illegal, unscheduled stranger and made illegal appearance.
* R does not meet conditions in Order XVII of CPC.
* Hence, the adjournment is not legally correct.
Violations: CAT rule on NOC –Annexure, A-3 + Order XVII of CPC.
3. Why did CAT fail to enforce promise that it vetted in court?
* On day-1, Justice SD Anand (SDA) had distinctly rejected the illegal chap’s (PROXY counsel’s) arguments and wanted to pronounce order in CP-1 on day-1 as per rules. This chap then turned to theatrics and pleaded that R understood what the judgment is and that R would do that justice to A without CAT pronouncing another order. SDA then decided to give good will last chance, issued strictest warning not to play mischief yet again and gave a conditional adjournment.
* Unfortunately Justice Anand turned out to be a member from CAT, Chandigarh bench. While A did not even know this, R planned a strategy and is adding more and more twists and turns.
* Justice Anand did not chair the court the next day.
* R conveniently violated more rules and went back on the promise to court in court.
* At the very face of what R claims as submission, it is obvious that R did not stick to the promise.
* CAT, that vetted R’s promise and gave that adjournment that did not exist has thus failed to deliver justice by implementing promise that R has given to court in court.
4. How are proceeds at 2 important milestones: a) CP-1, Day-2, b) CP-2 valid?
Justice could have been done at both of these important milestones of the case and it would have made all the difference to A, justice per se. But,……
* Rules 12(1) and 12(4) of CAT Procedure rules, 1987 make it mandatory to serve first ever reply to opponent well before scheduled hearing and to file it with court registry. These are fundamental rules that govern a court case. R violated both of the rules.
* Next, R gave the first reply by hand to court in court.
* How did CAT accept first ever reply by hand in court? This is a gross violation of court ethics.
* As R violated Rules 12(1) and 12(4) above, A did not even know what R had contended, the reply was not vetted by CAT registry.
* How did CAT officials conduct proceedings?
* Next, while CAT gave R more than 3 months time in OA and full 4 weeks in CP-1 and 4 weeks + 10 days extra time in CP-2, CAT did not give even breathing time to A on his turn, need.
* Why did CAT pronounce order IMMEDIATELY without even giving opportunity to opposite side?
* All in all both the proceedings and the trial are invalid on both of these occasions.
Violations: Rules 12(1), 12(4) of CAT Procedure rules 1987 in addition to other mandatory rules that govern a case.
5. How is non-affidavit valid in CP? (CP-1, Day-2)
o Rule 11 of Contempt of court (CAT) rules, 1992 makes it mandatory for reply in contempt notice to be on a legally valid affidavit.
o But, let alone being a legally valid affidavit, personal respondent C-5 (in CP-1) i.e. R-8’s so called reply is not even a legally valid reply.
o Yet, CAT has pronounced order based on this non-legal tender.
Violations: Rule 11of Contempt of court (CAT) rules, 1992.
6. Perjury-1: Deliberate false affidavit: CP-1, Day-2
* Court order that caused R to respond set following terms: a) Decide in accordance with law. b) Inform applicant. c) By due date.
* R asserts that the order asks to decide by due date. Next, at the face of the so called reply, from the date and address, it is visible that terms b and c have not been met with. – Annexure, A-7.
* Owing to gross illegalities, analysis of R’s reply could be afforded only much later after CAT pronounced the order in CP-1. It clearly establishes that R has MISREPRESENTED the court order. While this misrepresentation is dealt elaborately in the section, “Facts” of this writ, summary is capitulated here:
1. There is huge difference between: a) ‘Deciding’ and b) ‘Deciding in accordance with law, as per set norms’, akin to ranks, posts pari-passu with premier national bodies.
2. Court order explicitly requires R to inform A by due date. But R has cleverly MISREPRESENTED that part of informing A by due date as deciding by due date. Are they one and the same?
* This clever, timely MISREPRESENTATION in conjunction with other planned aspects: gross rule violations, mayhem in court at time of hearing helped R despite having been caught red handed.
* Factually, this false affidavit is part of well planned strategy that R enacted: R resorted to all sorts of tricks and got the first wedge by way of the adjournment in CP-1 when it was not permissible. Then R planned in such a manner that R would be able to bypass legal mechanisms, supplant lies in a clever manner by way of this false affidavit and somehow tilt balance in R’s favor.
* This misrepresentation has compounded injustice to A and has caused injustice to justice itself.
* Circumstances, mode, sophistication of individuals involved clearly point at crime as defined under IPC 191(False affidavit), 196 (Using evidence known to be false), 199 (False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence) and/or other laws for perjury and punishable under IPC 193 (Punishment for false evidence) or other laws for perjury as may be applicable.
Violations: * Court order (Annex-4) that is causing R to respond read in conjunction with the purported R’s reply in CP-1 (Annex-7).
* IPC 191 (False affidavit), 196 (Using evidence known to be false), 199 (False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence) in conjunction with IPC 193 (Punishment for false evidence) or any other law for PERJURY.
7. Why have important facts, background been overlooked?
* R unduly cheated A and caused enormous hardships. A has been enduring all of them amidst all sorts of challenges. It was 19 plus months when court expressly recorded these facts in the order.
* Thus, it is clear that R is not responding on own accord, but is doing so against a court order. So, every of its word, aspect assumes great importance.
* Further, this order sets ‘Non-merits’ to be basis for case and constricts the basis to evaluate, decide the case to bare minimal level.
* Thus, there cannot be any further dilution on evaluation criteria causing dilly-dallying in decisions.
* So, it is imperative to abide by rules v.v.strictly.
* But, CAT overlooked facts, background; turned nelson’s eye to gross rule violations, violated rules by itself and pronounced orders immediately on all occasions even without apt trial. These have caused great injustice to A, justice per se.
Violations: Court order (A-4) that is causing R to respond.
8. Has R complied by court order?
* The order has set 3 terms: a). Decide in accordance with law. b). Inform A. c). Do a & b by due date.
* R did not even revert back to A to find out what is contained in the representation.
* While it has deprived A of his fundamental rights and is an affront of constitution, A rues having lost an opportunity to dwell upon his science plans and get maturation support for them and reap dividends to India, universe per se.
* Has R complied with 1st term i.e. decide as per law? NOO.
* R, who is illegally enjoying coziness of office has all that it takes to reach A. But, A did not reach it. – Annexure A-8, A-9, Item 2.4 of A-1, RTI query
* Has R complied with 2nd term i.e. Inform applicant? NOO.
* Items 1.1à1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.7 in Annex, A-1, RTI query distinctly prove that R did not even have this reply both in OA and even in CP-1, Day-1.
* Further, analysis of this two page Xerox, a purported csir communiqué (which did not exist in OA and in CP-1, Day-1, but suddenly surfaced from underground after the illegal adjournment) shows that it is dated 21.7.10. Has R reached it to A on the same day? So, has R complied with 3rd term i.e. due date? NOO.
* Do 3 NOOs for 3 terms mean that R has complied by the court order? NOO.
* R is generating false evidences to escape punishment.
Violations: Court order (A-4) that has caused R to respond read along with Items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.7 of A-1, RTI query.
9. Did R’s fabrication i.e. purported CSIR order, dt: 21.7.10 exist in OA, CP-1?
* It takes nothing to file it along with requisite proofs as compliance report with court registry.
* But, it did not exist in OA and also in CP-1 on Day-1. That is why R could not file it with court registry even when court served contempt notice.
* But, the moment court gave an out of turn adjournment, R misused it to hilt, planned a set of things and fabricated this communiqué.
* R invented this fabrication to somehow escape punishment after being caught red handed.
It need be noted that even after R fabricated it, R did not give it to A in a straight forward manner.
* R violated fundamental court rules, bypassed court registry and submitted a non-reply by hand to the court in court on Day-2, CP-1. R enclosed this fabrication as an Annexure in that illegal submission.
* This underhand approach fails very spirit of the court order. R deliberately put A at a tight corner and sprang an attack on him with this surprise fabrication. A got psychologically shaken to such an extent that he could not even evaluate crime, injustice that R was fomenting on A. No wonder, he could not fight for his rights and get justice then and there.
* Especially under background that R had lot of time, resources at disposal, it is most dishonest, most undesirable of ways that one can think of.’
* All these show that R fabricated CSIR order.
Violations: 1. Obligations of a statutory government body.
2. Court order.
3. Rules 12(1), 12(4) of CAT procedure rules, 1987.
4. Court ethics of not accepting first time reply by hand and getting it routed through registry.
10. How is R’s illegal fabrication, the purported csir order dt: 21.7.10 right?
Note: This 2 page illegal fabrication is hereafter referred as ‘fabrication’.
* It arises out of a court order and not on own accord. So, it is the foundation for the case. Every of its word, aspect matters to set the evaluation criteria, decision in the case. It has clearly set “Non-merits” to be basis of the case”. It implies that test for compliance, conformance with the terms of the order is thread bare and the demarcation line is very thin in this case.
* Next, the order has distinctly recorded that R has already caused lot of hardships to A and has given sufficient time to R to do justice.
* This means that extra precaution needs to be taken to ensure that injustice does not get caused due to loose evaluation criteria or deficient trial etc.
* In wake of all above, and more so, in wake of court contempt notice, it is imperative not to dilute any term in order, lest it would cause more injustice.
* Against this background, it is clear that CAT can clear R only if all legal conditions, tests have been met.
* But, right at the face of this fabrication, it is very clear that R’s claim does not meet the court order.
* Further, CAT has not even probed the case. So, it is evident that it has not tested R’s claim for its veracity.
* Next, case specific evidences distinctly prove that this fabrication did not exist legally as on date indicated and even right through CP-1 and that it suddenly surfaced during the adjournment that R got illegally.
* From yet another angle, it is clear right at the very face of this fabrication that it does not meet the spirit of the conditional adjournment. (It is worth recall that R made an illegal appearance on day-1 and took an adjournment that was not in place. That adjournment was conditional and meant to be the last chance for good will and it was against R’s promise to do justice to A on own accord). But, does this fabrication conform to that promise?
* Thus, R is morally also not correct in having come up with this fabrication on Day-2 in CP-1.
* If CAT had stuck to law, wouldn’t A have got long pending justice right on day-1? Is that adjournment not due to R’s promise and CAT’s vetting? So, has CAT not failed in its duty to stick by what it vetted? Is CAT right in causing injustice to one party by unwarrantedly protecting another, even that other party has been caught red handed in the act of crime?
* While it is already proven that this so called reply to A’s representation fails on all the 3 counts set by the court order, some other tests also show its failure, all of which become obvious right at its very face needing no much of digging at all:
1. R has not given this communiqué to A as what the court had ordered.
2. R has not enclosed any proof for decision being in accordance with law.
3. Very date of this communiqué makes mockery of court order. The reply itself shows that due date to comply with court order is 21.7.10. But this communiqué, its enclosure has purportedly originated on that day. - Even if R did originate this order as what R falsely claims, did R reach it to A on the same day as has been ordered to do? R, a habitual offender is mocking at court order for having placed that prerogative at R’s hands.
4. It is addressed to wrong addresses. It thus violates fundamental rule 3(i) of CAT rules of practice, 1993.
As soon as R committed illegality by thrusting this fabrication on A in court during R’s contempt proceedings, though under shock, astonishment, helplessness; from within time on hand, A had cursory glance at it and pointed this illegality IMMEDIATELY in court itself and showed evidence for having provided correct address to R. Yet, CAT did injustice!!
5. Despite explicit instruction to decide in accordance with law, R has boldly violated A’s fundamental rights by not even providing A with the legitimate opportunity even at a decisive milestone, all even when a court has ordered. This is evident from fact that R has not enclosed any proof in so called reply.
8. R did not offer any reason/relief for well over 22 plus months. Even court order reflects it. So, how can CAT allow R to issue anything and everything when R has been asked to show cause as to why punishment should not be meted out to R for contempt of court?
9. R has caused a sensation to escape punishment by misusing power. R has fabricated this ‘Termination’ illegality as per whims, fancies and more so needs to cover up crime during the breather that R in the adjournment to tilt the balance in R’s favor.
10. Is ‘Termination’ legal if invoked as per whims and fancies and more so as per needs? Is ‘Termination’ valid even if it is against provisions of constitution? Is it not CAT’s duty to have asked R on basis for ‘Termination’ when R was asked to show cause why R should not be punished for contempt of court?
It is worth recall that A had to prefer a complaint (Representation Dt: 25.11.08) only because R did not give any reason/relief for blocking A at his own hard earned, well served office. It shows R neither had any legal communiqué (‘Termination simplicitor’), nor was it served on A.
Extending this discussion to next level, it is only because R had not offered any relief/reason even after 22 months that A filed OA. Next, only because R did not have the other fabrication i.e. purported CSIR order dt: 21.7.10 that court issued contempt notice.
These show that R is committing crime in an organized manner on a steadfastly honest, meritorious, patriotic, industrious individual that A is.
CAT could have dug out more of R’s lies, illegalities then and there instead of having caused more of injustice to A. Had CAT done this or given A his rightful opportunity of some time as per A’s eligibility to respond in the case instead of having pronounced an abrupt order in CP-1, A would have ripped R then and there.
It may further be noted that:
b.1)- ‘Termination simplicitor (that R cited in CP-2 and not in CP-1)’ has no legal basis. Had this existed, then let alone the OA in CAT, even the representation with DG-CSIR would not have had any legal stand. Thus, ‘Termination simplicitor’ is neither legal, nor was it served. R has illegally fabricated this also during adjournment that R got illegally.
b.2) There is no charge/ inquiry against A. That is why R did not offer any reason/relief even when explicit complaint was made.
b.3) No authority in hierarchy has ever examined A for any of the allegations in this fabrication.
All in all, R-5, the impersonator who has authorisedly used fake name R-6 etc seem to have made motivated allegations. R did not probe the matter, but has blindly echoed R-5’s one sided communiqués in toto, rather R has echoed these falsities at the last moment and in nick of time to somehow get saved from being punished.
Had only CAT given A the rightful opportunity that A deserves, A would have dug out more criminalities; specifically those of R-5, the impersonator authorisedly using fake name R-6, vested interests etc then and there instead of having had to undergo more of ordeals.
By giving credence to R’s fabrication abruptly all when R was asked to explain for crime, has CAT not allowed R to get away with crime?
11. As already noted, R has committed impropriety by not giving the first time reply in both CPs to A and not filing them with CAT registry. Thus, they were not legally vetted by CAT registry, a mandatory requirement for a decision in a case.
Analysis of the replies could be afforded only much later. Analysis distinctly shows that R’s first submission is not even a reply, while it should have been an affidavit and this is also a falsity, i.e. a false affidavit on oath). The second affidavit is full fledged, signed false affidavit on oath.
1. Personal aspects that matter for decision as serious as ‘Termination’:
12. A is a meritorious, zealous, patriotic scientist. He has won accolades from several personalities, seniors, Directors, HODs, Presidents/Chairmen etc and includes none less than DG-CSIR, Advisor to Minister of Science and Technology, GOI; Science Secretary to DG-CSIR etc. It will be placed before court if need be.
13. A is rightfully expecting triple/double promotion.
From all above, there are far too many clear pointers to doubt R’s claim that the 2 page communiqué enclosed as annexure in the so called reply is R’s reply to representation. CAT should have questioned R or allowed A rightful opportunity to file a rejoinder when R came up with this fabrication on day-2, CP-1; when R was asked to show cause why R should not be punished for contempt of court. CAT has ignored all of these and has done injustice.
All in all, this fabrication is R’s cunning plan to escape punishment in an authoritative manner when caught red handed. R has misused power and threatens to scuttle A’s hard earned, well served job for having initiated legal action on the powers it be in CSIR.
How is CAT right in straightaway accepting R’s contention on having complied by court order?
Violations: 1. Court order (A-4) that has caused R to respond
2. CAT vetting on R’s promise that caused the conditional adjournment on Day-1 in this CP.
3. Rules 12(1), 12(4) of CAT Procedure rules 1987
4. Absence of mandatory legal requirement for decision in a case, registry’s scrutiny report.
5. Article 311 of constitution of India.
11. Is it Resjudicata as what R has made it out in CP-2?
* CAT has issued contempt notice in CP-2 and has distinctly recorded that it is ‘Prima facie contempt’.
* R has made this false, rather deliberately mischievous claim at very first point in Annex A-13.
* R cleverly violated fundamental court rules, deliberately bypassed court registry and supplanted falsity, non-existent ‘Resjudicata’ in an affidavit.
* Incidentally, signatories of this false affidavit have authoritatively acclaimed strength of high chairs of CSIR, a Government science premier.
* It is this falsity and weight of chairs that influenced CAT so much. CAT has blindly assumed that individuals behind such high chairs cannot lie. How did CAT straightaway accept R’s contention?
* True that both CP-1 and CP-2 pertain same court order. CP-1 pertain “Non-compliance” and CP-2 pertains “MISREPRESENTATION” of this order. Are both same?
* It is clearly evident that involvement of big chairs conveyed a sense of authenticity that influenced CAT and not fact of the case.
* This falsity sailed through only because CAT accepted R’s first time ever reply by hand in court during court.
Violations: 1. Court norms- Breach of convention
2. Rules 12(1), 12(4)-CAT procedure rules 1987.
12. Perjury – 2: R’s deliberate false affidavit in CP-2:
* R did not comply with mandatory rules of giving first ever reply to A well before court proceeding and routing it through court registry. R committed one more violation by cleverly giving it to court in court by hand.
* These enabled R escape legal checks and sail through by submitting false affidavit.
* Analysis of this submission could be possible only after the order in CP. R has submitted that both CP-1 and CP-2 are based on same set of facts. – Very first point in Annex A-13.
* Annex, A-14 i.e. reproduction of pages 11à14, CP-2 distinctly disproves R’s false claim of Resjudicata with as many as 22 counts.
* This deliberate false supplant spoilt A’s chance and fetched R a favorable order in CP-2.
* Later, despite conclusive evidences, CAT processed both MA (Miscellaneous Application) that seeks revival of CP-1 and RA (Review Application) that seeks revival of CP-2 under this wrong notion. This false supplant has caused immense damage.
* Facts that R cheated by various professional tricks, that R has bypassed mandatory court rules and that R has used orders obtained from CAT illegally as certificates to bolster R’s causes in consequent court proceedings clearly shows that R delibereatly supplanted this falsity with a deep plan to cause havoc, wreck justice and profit out of chaos by fishing in troubled waters.
* Facts, backgrounds etc clearly point crime defined under IPC.
Violations: IPC 191 (False affidavit), 196 (Using evidence known to be false), 199 (False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence) and any other law/s for perjury and punishable under IPC 193 or any other law for perjury.
Grounds for challenge:
The impugned CAT order, dt: Oct 4, 2010 in CP 660/10 is challenged for following reasons:
1a). RTI query and reply (Annex A-1 and A-2) distinctly proves that all CAT proceedings in the case right from Day-2, CP-1 lack legality and hence invalidates all the proceeding arising out of them.
1b). The legal position as on Day-1 stands as: “After order in OA, No reply; After contempt notice, No reply; Ready for judgment”. So, legally the correct date for order in CP 660/10 is (Day-1) i.e. 30.9.10 and not (Day-2) 4.10.10.
CAT’s impropriety caused injustice: 1)Failure to realise that promise it vetted.
2) Allowing rule violations & violating rules itself
3) Blindly entertaining R’s defective, malicious, falsified contention, FALSE AFFIDAVIT ON OATH.
R’s illegal appearance, theatrics, promise to court in court on Day-1 fetched R conditional adjournment. But, Justice SD Anand (SDA) who gave this adjournment as a measure to give good will a last chance had issued strictEST warning to R not to err this time. Unfortunately SDA belongs to CAT, Chandigarh bench and did not chair Delhi court the next day. R, a professional knew this fact very well and had planned a meticulous trick. Accordingly, R bypassed fundamental rules of a court and submitted a false submission in writing. It is this illegal submission and the illegal manner in which it was submitted that caused injustice.
Cursory glance of R’s so called reply itself establishes that R failed good will, the main purpose of the conditional adjournment on Day-1 and that R has failed to comply with promise to court in court.
1a and 1b clearly point that the conditional adjournment needs to be cancelled and CP 660/10 should be decided as on Day-1 i.e. Sep 30, 2010.
This would save all rigors of all proceeds in the case right from Day-2, CP-1.
2. R submitted false affidavits on oath and has uttered lies at decisive milestones of case.
3. R is responding to A against court order and not on own accord. Thus, this order is fundamental edifice for the case and every of its word, aspect makes all the difference for justice in this case.
Further, court order distinctly records that R has not given any reason/relief to A for illegally using muscle power on Oct 30, 2008 and that R has already taken 18 plus months as on date of this order.
Had ‘Termination simplicator’ that surfaced in reply to CP-2 and not in reply to CP-1 existed, R would have served it on A and the whole of the representation, i.e. the present case itself would have crumbled long ago. This shows that it did not exist legally. R fabricated it sometime between adjournment in CP-1 (Sep 30, 10) & CP-2 (Jan 4, 11).
Further fact that A attended office till 30.10.08 distinctly prove that R has illegally fabricated it.
It is sad that R conveniently used it as piece of evidence to further his case in the non-trail at CAT.
4. Further, this order sets ‘Non-merits’ to be basis for the case. That implies that the boundary line between justice and injustice is very very thin. Thus, it was imperative upon CAT to have exercised great care in ensuring that all tests of validity, legality are fulfilled before accepting any contention, pronouncing orders in court proceeds.
But RTI query clearly proves that CAT neither subjected R’s contention to any test, nor fulfilled mandatory rules, but violated mandatory rules itself.
Further, CAT virtually overstepped A’s rights to a fair trial and hurriedly accepted R’s contention of having complied by the court order. Not just that, it even pronounced an order immediately! By doing so, it has compounded injustice by several folds.
5. Following are obvious right at the face of what R claims to be response to A’s representation:
1. Very date of annexure that R claims to be response to A’s representation distinctly shows that R has not reached it to A by due date, that R has not complied by the court order and that R is making mockery at it.
2. R has not decided in accordance with law.
3. R has not enclosed proofs that are legally sufficient for the 3 aspects that the court order set specifically: a) Decide in accordance with law, b) Inform A, c) Do both a and b by due date.
4. R has not used correct address.
Given background that:
1) R grossly abused power, transgressed a scientist colleague’s rights for greed AND
2). Court itself has given lot of time to R,
there cannot be any further concession in testing compliance of the simple terms of court order, lest it will cause irreparable damage to justice itself.
But all of above stare right at face and prove that R’s claim of having complied with court order is ABSOLUTELY invalid.
So, CAT’s abrupt order to close CP is wrong.
Apt action should be taken on R for perjury in contempt of court case.
6. CAT has allowed gross rule violations and has itself violated rules that govern a case. – While it allowed violation of Rules 12(1) and 12(4) of CAT procedure rules 1987, it has further compounded injustice by accepting first time ever reply by hand in court during court. It has itself violated fundamental court ethics.
Due to these violations let alone being able to add value to contempt proceedings, A was in total dark and A got crippled so much that he did not even know what R contended. As if this were not enough, CAT did not even give A rightful opportunity and pronounced order too. This is unfair trial.
7. No authority all along, right from csir to CAT have conducted any legal inquiry, but have blindly assumed that submissions made in English are right. Signatures by individuals in positions of power have only impressed respective authorities who should have judged. Instead, all assumed that the lower authority is right and have thus compounded injustice.
8. Analysis of R’s replies in both CPs could be afforded only after respective orders. Both have turned out to be false affidavits on oath. Let alone being a legally valid affidavit as per Rule 11 of Contempt of court (CAT) rules 1992, the first reply is not even a reply. As if these were not enough, R’s submission is absolutely defective, unacceptable even as a reply and more shockingly, it MISREPRESENTS the court order itself. It is a FALSE affidavit as defined in IPC 191!!
CAT is wrong in having accepted it blindly and repeated R’s words in its orders without testing them.
9. In CP-1, both R’s illegal written submission and CAT’s impugned order do not meet the court order that caused R to respond to A’s representation.
Hence, CP 660/10 is absolutely right and there is no reason to justify its abrupt closure.
10. CAT has committed gross impropriety by accepting crucial replies in toto without subjecting them to legal test, standard legal processes as per law.
By accepting a reply by hand and further, not subjecting it to any legal test, process; CAT put A at so much of disadvantage that A got reduced into being a mute dumb spectator. It enabled R heap injustice on A. These are amongst most humiliating moments that A would keep touching upon on and on …. till last breathe in this God given life.
11. Analysis of so called reply in CP-1 reveals:
R has contended that R was asked to pass speaking order by due date. Is it so? Does the order not direct R to pass speaking order in accordance with law and inform A by due date? Are both one and same as R portends in the illegally submitted reply and echoed in impugned CAT order?
R’s assertion amounts to saying that R is mandated to decide as per whims and fancies. Is it not quite different from what the court has ordered? Has the court not ordered R to decide in accordance with law? Does it not mean that the court has asked R to respect A’s rights, R’s commitment to adhere to constitution of India?
Can there be any dilly-dallying in evaluation when it involves as serious a matter as that of one’s well earned, hard served job?
Just because R has made a contention in black and white, is it right?
Well, this is how R-5, the impersonator who is faking on false name R-6, vested interests have been cheating A, csir, nation, universe, God per se.
12. CAT order that is causing R to respond records fact that despite many attempts over past 18 plus months, R did not offer A any relief/reason for abrupt, illegal, humiliating, traumatic obstruction.
Against an order that sets a thin line of difference between justice and injustice by setting ‘Non-merits’ to be basis of the case, and more so against such a pathetic background wherein one of the parties has grossly violated fundamental principles of constitution of India and has grossly caused injustice to a honorable citizen of India by causing an illegal blockade, can any of the three crucial aspects of the court order that caused R to respond be ignored: a). Decision to be in accordance with law, b). R should inform A (voluntarily), c). R should do so by due date?
But R’s contention, facts that are apparent and CAT order clearly prove that CAT has diluted the terms to suit R and has affixed its seal on illegality.
13. True, both CPs pertain same court order. CP-1 is for ‘Non-Compliance’, CP-2 is for ‘MISREPRESENTATION’ of this order (In reply to CP-1). Are both contempt same? Did R resort to both of the contempt in one single go? R committed them at distinctly different points of time. How can one CP cover both contempt?
A filed CP-2 as it is stronger contempt and would hasten justice. Non-compliance is supplementary supporting aspect and not main issue in CP-2. So CAT vetting of R’s contention on Resjudicata is wrong. Annex, A-14 proves that CP-2 differs from CP-1 on 22 counts.
Is A wrong in having filed successive CPs? NOO. CAT accuses A for this. Factually R has committed 3rd contempt and needs to be punished for it also.
14. While R’s fabrication, the purported CSIR order is neither legal nor in conformance with the court order, it does not have a legal existence neither.
Had this 2 page CSIR order been legal and in conformance with court order, it is child’s play to mail it to A by due date of court order. In that case, filling compliance report is hardly anything at all. All that R needed to do is to enclose this 2 page communiqué that R is claiming to be csir’s reply as per court order along with requisite proofs. R did not file it with court registry both in OA and CP-1.
R is deliberately distorting facts, creating chaos and snooking. R is seeking to hide behind a letter that R claims to be written by A’s father, a senior citizen located 2,500 kms away. At the very outset, why did R write to wrong addresses when R had valid address as defined by Rule 3(i) of CAT rules of practice, 1993. – Annex A-7, A-8 & A-9 proves it.
Further, A has always been in touch with R through one or other ethically correct means and could have been contacted for legally right aspects.
This drama of wrong address is part of R’s big ploy. R has produced cock and bull stories around this. The most wonderFOOL story is of the personal respondent R-5. He has contended in reply (i.e. signed Affidavit) in CP-2 (not CP-1) that, he did not respond to contempt notice-1 as he was away on LTC (Leave Travel Concession).
Whereas he has deliberately invented, heaped all sorts of miseries on A and is major, primEST cause for illegalities, he says he was on OFFicial picnic with wife and children, all when his victim is struggling, struggling …… unnecessarily due to R-5’s greed, wanton acts and more so, all when court has issued contempt notice!
R-4 (C-1 in CP), R-5 (C-2 in CP), R-8 (C-5 in CP) have used the same reasoning, words in their reply in CP-2. R-6 (C-3) and R-7 (C-4) have not even replied to court contempt notice in CP-2.
In above context, R-4 claims that he was sick for not having replied to court’s contempt notice-1. It is only to be pondered on whether it was headache or such an illness that R-4 was bedridden. It is pertinent to note that CPC provides for alternatives even if a person is totally bedridden. But R-4 did not.
These contempt should be punished immaterial of who, what.
Thus, while R should have rightfully been punished for multiple crime, default, violations etc, CAT has not even taken cognizance of crime, criminals and has done disservice by compounding injustice.
15. Fair trial demand fairness in all aspects. But, CAT has not been fair to A in any aspect that matters. The most palpable is the one of CAT not giving even a breather to A at critical milestones of the case.
While CAT has given more than permissible time to R in OA, CP-1 and CP-2, it did not even give breathing time to A and decided the case immediately despite it being obvious that R had not met with fundamental requirements, principles that govern fair trial in a case.
16. Impugned CAT order shows:
1. R handed over the illegal creation, csir order dt: 21.7.10 to A in court on Day-2, in CP 660/10. – Does it meet terms of court order?
2. CAT closed the CP at R’s written submission by giving R the benefit of doubt, but is not is not convinced at R’s assertion in having complied by the court order. It has given A option of reviving the CP.
In reality, CAT has not conducted any test for any of the parameters on which the delicate test for compliance of court order that is based on NON-MERIT should have been made.
That is why it has not closed the contempt proceedings in totality, but has just obliged R in good faith by presuming that R’s written submission is true.
But, the glaring truth speaks for itself. Having been a victim at R’s hands for the past 13-14 years, A and God knows amount of trouble, pain endured. This injustice is a triple disaster to A, double murder of justice. A touches upon his conscience, the God in him, the Gods in his parents, the Gods in his country, the ultimate Almighty and declares that A DOES NOT not want R to escape decisive punishment and seeks FULL justice. A assures that this is in wider interests of nation, science, universe per se, God per se and his personal interests are almost nothing at all in it.
17. Fact that A had made a representation and court had even issued an order and that it was about 21 months as on 21.7.10, it is very obvious that there cannot be any further extension whatsoever in the deadline to comply with the order.
But, it is now clear that the purported csir reply to A’s representation did not exist in OA and CP-1 too. But, it suddenly surfaced when a good will breather by way of a conditional adjournment was given.
While it is obvious that R has not kept with the promise to court in court just 4 day before, it sets one pondering on legitimacy of R’s claim. This purported reply is itself dt: 21.7.10. Did it reach A on the very same day? So, did it reach A on that very day (due date to comply with the court order)? So, has it complied with the court order?
Further, even during the breather, R has cheated A, deprived A of his rightful eligibilities, violated laws, back tracked on a promise made to court in court etc. All these have harmed A’s interests. R could have very well given this reply well ahead of contempt proceedings as per law if he were to have repented being unlawful, cheat. But, R chose to dramatize it and ambush A with a psychological attack. Hence, A invokes his rights and pleads for EXTRA punishment to R.
18. Pages 11à14 of CP-2 have been distinctly reproduced in RA. These pages contain a table that shows that CP-2 differs from CP-1 on of 22 points.
Yet, order in RA does not even acknowledge that it has erred in CP-2 by blindly accepting R’s assertion that CP-2 is Resjudicata.
It is well to recall that R had not even fulfilled mandatory procedure of serving the reply to opponent well before the court proceedings. Thus, A was not even aware of what R had claimed. A came to know of R’s false claim on Resjudicata only much later when A got the written order. RTI reply clearly proves A’s contentions made here. Yet, CAT did not accept error on its part and has blocked A’s chances for justice at CAT.
19. Does the order not mean that R should decide in consonance with law meaning the broader law, the constitution? Is R right in exploiting, producing lies, creating nuisances and humiliating A, a honorable, patriotic scientist? Did R provide rightful opportunity at any time? Factually, R has played a cunning trick on A to get him create posts here, there on his aegis, which R would then use it for kith and kin. Are any of these lawful?
In sum and substance, it is apparent that R has played cunning, vicious trick and has not hesitated to commit willful PERJURY to save from getting punished for contempt of court. CAT has not done its duty as is expected of it and all proceeds in CP-1 and CP-2 are based on R’s false affidavit on oath. All these have compounded injustice instead of providing justice and hence this matter is being placed at fore of this court for due justice.
Prayer:
This Hon’ble Court is humbly prayed to:
1. REVOKE adjournment that R illegally obtained in CP-1 when the legal position stands as: “After order in OA, No reply. After contempt notice, No reply. Ready for judgment” and RIGHTFULLY DECIDE THE CASE as on CP-1, Day-1 (Sep 30, 10),
2. QUASH order in CP-660/10 (CP-1).
3. Order apt remedies for following grossly erroneous proceeds in CAT:
1. MA 1017/2011 that rightfully sought revival of CP-1.
2. CP 874/10 and its RA 121/11:
1. Order in CP 874/10 on Jan 4, 10.
2. Order in RA 121/11 on Apr 29, 11.
4. Order apt punishment to respondents under IPC 193 (Punishment for false evidence) or any other law for PERJURY for illegalities as defined in IPC 191(False affidavit), 196 (Using evidence known to be false), 199 (False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence).
5. Order to csir to:
1. Provide all losses: monetary, career (promotions, seniority etc) that R has inflicted on A without any further harassment, delay etc.
2. Extend A’s service tenure.
3. Not subject A to any sort of victimization, transfer etc.
Declaration
The applicant hereby declares that the above writ falls within the purview of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and that all case related documents (true copies of the original pertaining the case in CAT) have been submitted.
Deponent
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 10 August 2011
A judgment in civil case is, as a rule, not binding on criminal Court and vice versa. But where the judgment in civil case is a judgmnet in rem and operates as conclusive proof under S. 41 of Evidence Act, it is binding on criminal Court. For instance, if a final judgment of a civil Court holds that the marriage between A and B is void,C cannot be prosecuted for adultery with B.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 10 August 2011
Dear Dr. Rao,
Hats off to you. What a fine example to drive home a point! Yes, that comes to you naturally due to your vast experience.
Regards.
shamsher
(Expert) 12 August 2011
agree with mr rao
VISHNU
(Querist) 13 August 2011
Dear Ld counsels
we extend great thanks to all Ld counsels who settled the query, it means it depends upon the facts proved in civil case to bind upon criminal court.
VISHNU
(Querist) 22 October 2011
Special Apaulse/Hatts off- to Dr Rao
We extend great thanks for good reply. It means that if A wife has failed to prove cruelty and dowry harassment charges in Maintenance case and thus maintenace denied by any court, then what will effect of this civil court judgment in case U/S 406/498-A IPC?
pLS REPLY
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 09 August 2011
