[Reader-list] How true is Justice Sabharwal? Probe demanded. (Plagiarised?)

Fri Sep 21 12:35:11 IST 2007

Dear Shivam

  Is the "plagiarism" charge on Abhishek Behl specific to his article "How true is Justice Sabharwal? Probe demanded".

  Where has it been "plagiarised" from?

  In his article Abhishek has mentioned the following:

  """"The document (press release), is reproduced verbatim, issued by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms (CJAJR), on Wednesday: """""

  You must be having good reasons for the "plagiarism" accusation.

  Kshmendra Kaul

Shivam Vij <mail at shivamvij.com> wrote:
  Dear Bikash,

Thanks for posting this here. If you happen to know Mr Abhishek Behl,
please tell him that plagiarism may not be as bad as nepotism by a
Chief Justice but it is still criminal. No doubt you will find this on
"merinews," which is sadly falls lowest in terms of online
credibility.
best
shivam

On 9/20/07, Bikash Ballabh Singh wrote:
> Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice YK Sabarwal is in the midst of a
> controversy, with senior lawyers and former CJIs demanding a probe into the
> allegations. A Report...
>
> by Abhishek Behl
> http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=126536
>
> HE SEALED the fate of many a people in Delhi, with his strict orders on
> 'Sealing' the illegal buildings in the Indian capital.
>
> But 'sealing' today came back to haunt the former Chief Justice of India
> (CJI), Justice Y K Sabharwal, when questions were raised over his
> professional conduct into the entire sealing episode.
>
> Raising serious allegations over the professional demeanour of the former
> CJI, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms (CJAJR),
> a group of jurists and social activists, demanded a probe into the manner in
> which his Lordship accrued pecuniary benefits for his sons, through his
> judicial orders over the sealing issue, on Wednesday (September 19).
>
> We need to approach the serious allegations against the former CJI with
> caution and care. Is Justice Sabharwal being singled out for some reason or
> is there any iota of truth in these charges? In fact, a section of the legal
> fraternity feels that Justice Sabharwal should himself demand an impartial
> probe into the serious allegations. They added that other former CJIs,
> judges and senior lawyers' demand for a fair probe into these charges needs
> to be viewed in the light of utter fairness and objectivity.
>
> Addressing media persons in Delhi, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan demanded
> that an independent probe should be ordered by the Supreme Court of India to
> find out the truth.
>
> "We want the truth to come out and for this the Supreme Court has to take
> the lead", he said, alleging that Justice Sabharwal's two sons had colluded
> with the builders to take advantage of the real estate market influenced by
> the sealing drive.
>
> Making a point-by-point rebuttal of Justice Sabharwal's statement published
> in the media, Prashant demanded that the Justice Sabharwal be charged under
> prevention of corruption act.
>
> The Judicial Reforms Group further stated that they would initiate an
> independent inquiry if the Supreme Court did nothing in this regard.
>
> A time of reckoning for Indian Judiciary has come and it is time the Apex
> Court rises to the occasion and faces the challenge, said former Law
> Minister and veteran lawyer, Shanti Bhushan.
>
> "A number of former Chief Justices including Justice V K Krishna Iyer,
> Justice PB Sawant, Justice JC Verma have called for a probe into this matter
> and same will bring forth the truth.
>
> Noted social activists Swami Agnivesh and Arvind Kejriwal, who were present
> on the occasion, also demanded an impartial probe into the affairs of
> Justice Sabharwal.
>
> On this occasion, a document, in the form of a press release, was issued by
> the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms detailing the
> alleged irregularities.
>
> Here it must be mentioned that former Chief Justices of India including
> Justice J C Verma, Justice VN Khare, Justice PB Sawant and Justice V R
> Krishna Iyer had called for a voluntary probe to put an end to this
> controversy. They had said that an independent probe would bring out the
> truth and restore the credibility of Indian judiciary.
>
> A few days earlier, Justice Sabharwal had, however, strongly denied any
> wrongdoing on his part or on the part of his two sons, in the media.
>
> The document (press release), is reproduced verbatim, issued by Campaign for
> Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms (CJAJR), on Wednesday:
>
> Justice Sabharwal finally broke his silence in a signed piece in the Times
> of India. His defence proceeds by ignoring and sidestepping the inconvenient
> and emphasizing the irrelevant if it can evoke sympathy. To examine the
> adequacy of his defence, we need to see his defence against the gravamen of
> each charge against him.
>
> *Charge No. 1:* That his son's companies had shifted their registered
> offices to his official residence.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* That as soon as he came to know he ordered
> his son's to shift it back.
>
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* This is False. In April 2007, in a recorded interview
> with the Midday reporter MK Tayal he feigned total ignorance of the shifting
> of the offices to his official residence. Copy of the CD containing the said
> conversation is attached hereto as Annexure I. In fact, the registered
> offices were shifted back from his official residence to his Punjabi Bagh
> residence exactly on the day that the BPTP mall developers became his sons'
> partners, making it very risky to continue at his official residence. Copies
> of the document showing the date of induction of Kabul Chawla, the promoter
> and owner of BPTP in Pawan Impex Pvt. Ltd., one of the companies of Jutstice
> Sabharwal's sons, and Form no. 18 showing the shifting of the registered
> office from the official residence of Justice Sabharwal to his family
> residence on 23rd October 2004 are attached hereto as Annexure II (Colly).
>
> *Charge No. 2:* That he called for and dealt with the sealing of commercial
> property case in March 2005, though it was not assigned to him. It is only
> the Chief Justice who can assign pending cases to various judges. He was not
> the CJI at that time. Copy of the order dated 17th March 2005 is attached
> hereto as Annexure III.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* Justice Sabharwal does not answer this
> charge.
>
> *Charge No. 3:* That he did this exactly around the time that his sons got
> into partnerships with Mall and commercial complex developers, who stood to
> benefit from his sealing orders. The chain of events is as follows:
>
> On 23rd October 2004, Kabul Chawla, the promoter of one of the biggest
> developers of shopping malls and commercial complexes, was inducted in Pawan
> Impex as a 50% shareholder and Director. On 12.02.2005, Kabul Chawla's wife,
> Anjali Chawla was also inducted as Director of Pawan Impex. On 17th March
> 2005, Justice Sabharwal ordered that the case dealing with the sealing of
> commercial establishments should also be heard along with the writ of M.C.
> Mehta, which was being heard by him. On 8th April 2005, Chetan Sabharwal and
> Nitin Sabharwal, two sons of Justice Sabharwal, set up another company,
> Harpawan Constructors, with the object of constructing Commercial complexes.
> On 25th October 2005, Purshottam Bagheria, one of the big builders on
> shopping malls and commercial complexes of Delhi was inducted as a partner
> in Harpwan Construtors. On 16th Februrary 2006, Justice Y. K. Sabharwal, who
> by that time had become the Chief Justice of India, passed a detailed order
> in the aforementioned case setting into motion the demolition and sealing in
> Delhi.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* That they were his sons friends. That
> Harpawan Constructors, which was set up by his sons with the Mall developer
> Purshottam Bagheria did not do any business. In fact the courts under him
> got Bagheria's 1 MG road mall demolished. That his sons are not developing
> shopping malls but only an IT Park.
>
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* If so many Mall and commercial complex developers were
> his sons' close friends, then he should not have dealt with the case anyway
> since that creates an immediate conflict of interest. Moreover, why should
> they go into partnership with these developers who stood to benefit from
> Justice Sabharwal's orders, and that too exactly at the time when he seizes
> control of the sealing of commercial property case and starts dealing with
> it. He says that the company set up by his sons in partnership with Bagheria
> has not done any business. If so, why was this new company set up for
> developing commercial complexes in partnership with this builder? In an
> interview with ZNews Justice Sabhawal claims credit for the judiciary under
> him ordering the demolition of the illegal 1 MG road mall owned by Bagheria.
> But then why do his sons enter into partnerships with such an illegal
> builder whose buildings have had to be demolished by the Judiciary? And
> immediately after this partnership with the Sabharwals, Bagheria went on to
> announce the construction of "Square 1 mall" in Saket as the most
> fashionable mall in India. And all the fashion designers who had their shops
> and outlets at 1 MG road went on to buy space in the Square I mall. What is
> important to note here is that Bagheria and his partners at 1 MG road had
> already parted with all the space on 1 MG Road. The demolition thus hurt the
> designers and others who had bought shops there, but did not hurt Bagheria
> who may have in fact benefited from it by clearing the land of his tenants
> and getting them to buy space at his new malls at Saket and elsewhere.
> An IT park is also a commercial complex like any other. Many commercial
> establishments sealed were IT centres and BPOs, which were forced to buy
> space in, IT parks like that being constructed by his sons and their
> partners.
>
> *Charge No. 4:* That the Union Bank of India gave a loan of 28 crores to his
> sons' company Pavan Impex on a collateral of plant and machinery and other
> moveables at the site of their proposed IT Park, which were non-existent.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response*: That his sons' had a credit facility of 75
> crores.
>
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* If that were the case, what was the need for mortgaging
> non-existent assets for obtaining this loan? Moreover, the Banks' senior
> manager is on record saying that the loan was given on the basis of
> projected sales to prospective customers. The conversation with the Bank
> Manager is in the CD attached hereto as Annexure I.
>
> *Charge No. 5:* That because of the obvious conflict of interest, he could
> not have dealt with this case.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* That his orders have never benefited his
> sons.
>
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* His orders of sealing lakhs of commercial properties
> clearly forced those establishments to buy or rent space in commercial
> complexes like those that his sons' companies were constructing; and
> shopping malls etc that their friends and partners were constructing. There
> was a clear conflict of interest and his orders have clearly benefited his
> sons and their partners.
>
> *Charge No. 6:* That a large number of industrial and commercial plots were
> allotted in Noida by the UP government to his sons' companies, at prices far
> below the market price. In particular several huge plots were allotted
> between December 2004 and November 2006 by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh
> government, while he was dealing with Amar Singh's tapes case, and had
> stayed the publication of those tapes on the behest of Amar Singh.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* That some of the plots were allotted by
> earlier different governments. That the prices were not far below the market
> price. That the allotments were made in the normal course to his sons who
> were entrepreneurs and were providing employment to hundreds of people in
> Noida.
>
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* Even if one were to look at only the last two
> allotments of 12,000 metres each made in December 2004 and November 2006,
> made by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh governments, it is obvious that the
> allotments are definitely not in the normal course. Consider the allotment
> to Pawan Impex. The company has Nil turnover and Nil business (as declared
> in their application) on the date of application on 30/12/04. The very next
> day they receive a letter from Noida Authority asking them to come for an
> interview within 4 days on 5/11/04. On that day the authority notes that
> they want 12,000 sq m in Sector 125 or Sector 132. The minutes note that
> because the work of development of Sector 125 is not complete and because in
> sector 132 the plot size available is only upto 11,000 sq metres, the matter
> is deferred for the next meeting. In the next meeting on 13/12/04, though
> Sector 125 is still not developed, a decision is taken to allot them a
> 12,000 Sq. metre plot in Sector 125 for a BPO. All this without a word about
> how and why a company with nil business is worthy of being allotted one of
> the largest plots of 12,000 sq. meters. The previous application of M/s
> Softedge Solutions Pvt. Ltd for an IT park is rejected on the ground that
> they could not satisfactorily answer questions about their previous
> experience in IT and their technical tie up. But Pawan Impex represented by
> Chetan Sabharwal with Nil business, no previous track record in IT and no
> technical tie up sails through with no questions asked. All in the normal
> course, of course! Copies of the profit and loss accounts of Pawan Impex
> Pvt. Ltd. for the year ended 31.03.2003 and 31.03.2004 showing its income
> nil are attached hereto as Annexure IV (Colly). Justice Sabharwal says that
> the allotment price of Rs. 3,700/sq M was not below the market price. The
> current circle rate in Sector 125 is Rs. 11,000/sq metre and the market
> price is over Rs. 30,000/sq meter there.
>
> Similarly, the huge plot of 3 acres, No. 12 A in Sector 68 alloted to Sabs
> Exports in November 2006 at a throw away price of Rs. 4000 per square meter
> is also not in the normal course and was similarly made within days of
> application and a bogus interview, without any other system. Today, within
> 10 months of allotment, even the circle rate of plots in Sector 68 is Rs.
> 8,000 per sq. meter and the market rate is Rs. 20-22,000 per sq. meter.
> Moreover this allotment has been made at a time when he was dealing with
> Amar Singh's tapes case and had stayed the publication of the tapes.
>
> *Charge No. 7:* That his sons have purchased a 1150 square meter house in
> Maharani bagh, New Delhi in March 2007 for a consideration of 15.46 crores.
> The source of money for this is unexplained and in the sale deed they seek
> to conceal their relationship with Justice Sabharwal by writing his name as
> Yogesh Kumar and giving their factory address instead of the residential
> address.
>
> *Justice Sabharwal's response:* That 90 per cent of the money for the
> purchase of this house was from four banks; that his sons concealed his full
> name in the sale deed in order to avoid taking advantage of their
> association with him.
> * *
> *CJAJR's Rejoinder:* Banks do not normally advance loans of 90% of the value
> of a property on its security. Otherwise they would end up holding
> inadequate security if the property prices fall by even 15%. If they have
> done so in this case, it is either because of an undue favour as in the case
> of the loan of 28 Crores to Pawan Impex, or they valued the property higher
> than the declared purchase price. His explanation for concealing his name in
> the sale deed is hilarious and unbelievable since his sons did not hesitate
> to use his official residence as the registered office of their companies.
> Moreover, this was in a registered sale deed with a private party, where
> there was no occasion for taking any advantage by using his name.
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.