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

[Bikash Ballabh Singh]

Hi shivam, I'm in montreal & merinews have a good space in NRIS & how you
say this is a case of plagiarism.

On 9/20/07, 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 <vikash.sen at gmail.com> 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 15.46crores.
> > 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.
>