BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF BOMBAY
UNDER
CENTRAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-2005.
First Appeal under Section 19(1)
Madhav Gajanan Deshpande.. President
Forum for Justice, 7 Kaustubhdham CHSLtd.,
23, Sanghani Estate, Ghatkopar Mumbai-86…..Appellant
V/S
Smt. U. S. Srivastava , Master and Asstt. Prothonotary
And Public Information Officer High Court Mumbai..Respondent
In response to my application under Section 6(1) of Right to Information Act 2005, the Public Information Officer is expected to furnish me the particulars of information solicited by way of the copies of the observations, findings, of the enquiry made in to my complaint letters dated 05th and 08th June 2009 in respect of supposed to be duty bound role and functions performed by parties involved in seeking and parting the justice in the Suit No.2051 of 1996 and the Notice of Motion No.2052 of 1996 and thereafter number of Notices of Motion moves and Chamber summons and Affidavits etc filed in the course seeking truthful and fair disposal of the said suit etc.
It is observed that after persistent pursuing, even after 30 days, the specific information on the serious lapses amount to criminal acts, mentioned in my complaint, it appears no serious cognizance is taken on different concern levels. Please note that I have considered it necessary to bring to the notice of judicial authority and administration "my knowing of crime being committed as not informing to supreme authority (here the judiciary), is I consider to have committed crime".
In the light of the above I request the Appellate Authority to direct the Public Information Officer to furnish me with information about, if any, action taken and investigation conducted or so motto criminal action taken on those who are party to crimes, of different nature, connected with this Suit, within judicial administration and or out side parties organizations connected with this Suit. It is expected to get point wise information on the 32 points of my complaint as mentioned below which may please be considered as my rejoinder to the reply given by the Public Information Officer.
This exercise is with intention to streamline a) Judiciary Administration b) Parting of Justice System c) reliving uncalled for load on the Judges so that they will have time to go through the matters before them in details and only take the opinion of Advocates of the both the side before they reduce their studies finding in the forum of orders/Judgments.
1. In this case, it is unfortunately, is observed that the Judges who have handle this matters for the purpose of parting justice, due to overload, have not gone into the merits and facts mentioned in the Suit No.2051 of 1996 with Notice of Motion No.2052 of 1996 wherein the plaintiff No.1 Mrs. Haleema widow of late Mr. Abdul Kadar Moosa Aga had prayed that Plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 made in this suit by the plaintiff to support her, are the only legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Abdul Kadar Moosa Aga, who are entitled to inherit the movable and immovable property as per Mohmedian Law.
2. After the defendants received copy of suit and Notice of Motioned filed, through belief in the month of Sept.1996, to defend them and disprove the Plaintiff No.1, the defendants aught to have filed, on or before the completion of sixty (60) days from receipt of suit papers filed i.e. before end of Nov.1996, their written statement and the documents along with list of additional documents they wish to ‘RELY UP ON’ by getting the submissions duly verified by the then High court Associate Shri. Trivedi and there after as per the procedure of the court, the affidavit etc should have gone through the Prothonotary & senior Master, registrar / Registrar General and their office for presenting the Suit file before the Honorable Justice, called for when the matter is on his board.
3. The defendant No.2, MS. Jaitoon Baig is the sister of the deceased and the defendant No.1 MS. Roshanara A. Baig is Advocate and daughter of defendant No.2 who were given shelter by the deceased on humanitarian grounds of which they are trying to take undue and against the law advantage by claiming the property owned and funds in the bank accounts and due from his employers M/S Ralliwolf Ltd and Provident Funds Authorities etc.
4. The said Suit No.2051 of 1996 with Notice of Motion No.2052 of 1996 and Petition dated 10.06.96, to obtain leave under Clause XII of the letters Patent to institute the suit in this Hon’ble Court as one of the property is situated out of Mumbai limit. The
Petition dated 10.06.96 first came for hearing before the Justice Dr. Shreemati P. D. Upasani on 13.06.1996. Honorable Justice Dr. Shreemati P. D. Upasani on 13.06.1996 passed orders for leave under Clause XII of the letters Patent. The judicial administration hurriedly transferred the Suit to long cause.
5. The Notice of Motion No.2052/96 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996 filed by the Original Plaintiff was heard by the Hon’ble Justice J.N.Patel on 23.07.96, where in the advocate of the plaintiff Miss L.C.Wadwani orally made a mention of evidence with her in respect of registered sale deed for shop at Mumbra dated 17-06-1993, Urdu divorce dated 27-12-1977 and will dated 11-05-1994 signed by the deceased Abdul Kadar Moosa Aga to prove that the Plaintiff has no legal right over the deceased’s property but same was not brought on records by defendant No.1 and 2’s Advocate Miss L.C.Wadwani though she was holding Affidavit in reply dated 20.07.96 etc in her hand dully verified by Associate Trivedi on 20.07.96.
6. It goes without saying that the said defendants’ Affidavit in reply , written statement along with documentary evidence and the list of additional documents they wish to RELY UP ON etc, in reply duly verified by associate on 20.07.96 aught to have been immediately produced in original before Honorable Justice J.N.Patel on 23.07.96 which she did not do and did not file the same and intentionally kept with her as a part of their strategy of confusing and misleading the Hon’ble Justice in chair time to time.
7. Hon’ble Justice J.N.Patel passed the order that the Affidavit in reply is to be filed by Defendant 1 and 2 within two weeks time also directed to Defendant NO.4 M/S Ralliwolf Ltd, employer of deceased AKM Aga not to pay any amount to any party/person also directed Defendant 1 and 2 to give particulars of the amounts received from defendant No.4 Ralliwolf Ltd.
8. The Notice of Motion was further heard by Hon’ble Justice J.N.Patel on 06.08.96 and in the absence of defendants 1 & 2 filing the Affidavit etc. which intentionally was not filed till the matter had come for hearing on 06.08.96 with the full knowing that as Defendant No.1 and 2 had no valid legal documents to substantiate their Affidavit and advocate Miss. L. C. Wadwani not remaining present, Hon’ble Justice J.N.Patel confirmed his previous order dated 23.07.96 of granting injunction to Defendant No.4 till further orders. If Defendant No.1 and 2 would have been compelled to file the Affidavit ect and documentary evidence before Justice J. N.Patel on 06.08.96, the matter would have ended with the order on Notice of Motion No.2052/96 and the Suit would have been ended there and there only with orders for criminal proceedings against the all involved in fabricating fraudulent documents and conspiracy hand in glows with officers and clerical staff of sub register office thane etc. as also some of the members of advocate fraternity involved.
9. As the part of criminal tact ticks, the Affidavit, written statement along with documentary evidence and the list of additional documents they wish to RELY UP ON, duly verified by the court associate was intentionally not brought on judicial record by moving leave petition for condoning delay in filing the affidavit etc beyond permissible sixty (60) days limit i.e. after end of Nov.96, and without getting delay condoned, all with the connivance some of court staff. On the basis of the information gathered about the Provident Fund account and super annuation amount with L.I.C.of India the Original Plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No.905/96 on 09.09.96 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996 before Justice S. H. Kapadia same was heard on 11.09.96 and granted the prayers in Chamber Summons and added Defendant No.5 P.F. Office and Defendant No.6 LIC, Mumbai.
10. In continuation to order passed on Chamber Summons by Ho’nble Justice S. H. Kapadia On 11.09.96 matter had come for hearing before Ho’nble Justice K.G.Shah who passed order that the Defendant No.5 Provident Fund office to deposited the amount at credited of deceased AKM Aga in the custody of Prothonotary and Senior Master High Court. The Defendant No.6 LIC, Mumbai submitted their say stating that amount due was handed over to the beneficiary, on records, of late Aga accordingly the same was given to Defendant No.1 by Cheque.
11. It was criminal and fraudulent on the part of Defendant No.1 to project herself with Society at Mumbra for transferring the share certificates of shop, on the lines what the Defendant No.1 did while getting M.S.E.B. electric meter transferred in the name of Defendant No.1 Miss Roshanara Baig, and approach along with her request letter dated 16.06.97 to transfer the maintenance payment receipts in her name for shop by attaching Xerox copy of said incomplete and fraudulently registered agreement to sale dated 17.06.93 with the deceased AKM AGA as if Defendant No,01 Miss Roshanara Baig is owner of the shop under agreement to sale.
12. In the mean time on going through the so called registered agreement to sale the Society Authorities smell something fishy in the said copy of the agreement and the office bearers of Society at Mumbra observed that the agreement to sale document attached with her request letter dated 16.06.97 was not having the registered eleventh (11th) page and with Xerox copy of receipt irrelevant and without Thane sub register’s registration stamp for the said receipt as eleventh (11th) page, attached to the said agreement submitted to society. To bring these criminal activities to the knowledge of original Plaintiff and to safeguard the interest of genuine heirs of deceased AKM AGA in their legal fight, society office bearers took out Xerox copies of the letter and accompaniments before the said letter and accompaniments were returned to her on her demand.
13. Based on the above information and to restrain the Defendant No. 1 and 2 from their Criminal and fraudulent activities and to stop the society authorities from issuing and transferring any of the receipts in the mane of Defendant No.1. The Original Plaintiff moved the High Court by filling Additional Affidavit dated 25.06.97 in respect of above criminal act, in the said Notice of Motion no.2052/96 of Suit No. 2051 of 1996.
14. In response to the above Affidavit which had come for hearing on 27.07.97 before Justice S. H. Kapadia, Defendant No.1 and 2 vide their Affidavit in reply filed in this respect, denied that they had ever requested the society of shop at Mumbra to transfer the Maintenance receipt in her name owner of the shop under agreement to sale. In the light of above the pray(b) of Notice of Motion 2052/96 through the Affidavit dated 25.06.96 filed by the Original Plaintiff, was granted by Justice S.H. Kapadia vide an order dated 27.07.97 where by all other concern authorities Agencies etc, were ordered not to transfer any of the assets to any party or person.
15. The Defendant No.1 Roshanara Baig refused before Justice S.H. Kapadia to have applied to Society for transfer of Maintenance receipt etc, and refused to have written any letter to Society. She realized the gravity and seriousness of her blatant lay before court and order dated 27.07.97 of Hon’ble Justice S. H. Kapadia, she rush to the office of the Society at Mumbra and requested the society Authority to give back her letter dated 16.06.97 Addressed to Society along with the enclosure such as the said fraud Agreement and receipt from M.S.E.B. Mumbra for payment received towards transferred of Electric Meter in her name.
16. Based on the information & copies received from society the Plaintiff hereto moved and filed another Additional Affidavit dated 24.07.97 in the Notice of Motion No.2052/96 attaching said copy of the letter give to the Society and withdrawn there after by Miss. Roshanara Baig along with the documents attached by the Defendant No.1. The matter was heard before Justice S.H. Kapadia on 30.07.97. As the part of judicial administrative procedure it is expected of Defendant No.1 to file their Affidavit in reply to the Additional Affidavit dated 24.07.97 filed by the Original Plaintiff which came for hearing on 30.07.97 before Hon’ble Justice S.H. Kapadia but as per the continued tactics and style of Defendant No.1, the required Affidavit was not filed to mislead the Hon’ble justice in the chair and irrelevant documents were produced before seating Justice.
17. This time also she played same tactic and so called Registered Agreement & copy of Payment receipt to MSEB Mumbra along with Affidavit was not file and Defendant No.1 produced the Said false, fraudulent Registered Agreement which was not taken on record as the same was not submitted in this matter being heard before Justice S.H. Kapadia on 30.07.97. The incomplete Agreement for sale dated 17.06.93 fraudulently got registered by the Defendant No.1 Roshan Baig. Hon’ble Justice S.H.Kapadia did not verified whether such document was so taken on records to understand the and produced hurriedly before him with the original, if at all submitted, to understand that it is genuine and relevant. The defendants had shown the copy of of the Agreement for sale to give impression as if the said agreement is for leave and license of the shop premises and the said request Letter dated 16.06.97 was given by Defendant No.1 in her person capacity to Society at Mumbra.
18. Unfortunately Hon’ble Justice S.H. Kapadia without going in to the contents of the Agreement fallen prey to the Criminal tactics of defendant no.1 when her advocate Miss Sarkhot hurriedly showed the said fraud Agreement for sale in a style to give the impression to the Justice that the agreement shown in court is an agreement for leave and license. Hon’ble Justice S.H.Kapadia order dated 30.07.97 was based on the false documents produced as mentioned above resulted into wrong and unjust orders passed which did great injustice to the Plaintiff No.1 In the said order dated.30.07.97 Justice S.H. Kapadia on the said Additional Affidavit dated 25.07.97 of Original Plaintiff ordered that the plaintiff is free to come back to this Judicial forum if Defendant No.1 intention are to request the society to Transfer the share certificate and Defendant No.1 was scot-free to continue on judicial arena her criminal illegal activity to misleading the judiciary. Thereafter matter had come for hearing on the Notice of Motion No.2052/96 in Suit No.2051/96 before Justice A.Y. Sakhare on 18.11.97. While hearing the matter about Defendant No 4 Provident Fund authorities refusing to obey and act on the order passed by Justice K.G. Shah dated 24.09.96 in respect of P. F. Amount in the credit of AKM Aga to be handed over in the custody of Prothonotary & Senior master. Justice A.Y.Sakhare Passed order against indifference shown by P.F. Authorities in transferring said amount in custody of Prothonotary & senior master and directed Defendant No.4 P.F. Office to forthwith transfer the said amount in custody of Prothonotary & Senior master failing which the P.F. office will have to pay 18% interest for the delay time period.
19. In the said proceeding before the Justice A.Y.Sakhare Adv. Miss Sarkhot of defendant No.1 and 2 produced Xerox copy of Registered Agreement to sell for shop owned by the deceased AKM AGA at Mumbra which, intentionally and criminally, was not brought on record of court through court associate and knowledge of prothonotary and senior master’s office by Adv. Miss Sarkhot of defendant No.1 and 2 by taking due leave from court for delay in submission of Affidavit etc after sixty (60) day of receipt of main Suit No. 2051 of 1996 and attachments etc through belief as the main evidence by way of said agreement to sale, being forge and fabricated document the said incomplete document was fraudulently registered at Sub-Registered office at Thane though brought to the notice of all previous judges before whom this matter had come up for hearing which included Justice J. N. Patel and Justice S. H. Kapadia and Justice K. G. Shah. It is surprising to note how Justice A. Y. Sakhare had not gone into the basic details of the case such as:
a) It is to note that the Defendant No. 1 and 2 and had not filed their Affidavit in reply, written statement and the documents along with list of additional documents they wish to ‘RELY UP ON’ etc by getting the authenticity verified by court associate to form the same as court’s record for the benefit of the Honorable Justice before whom will appear for deciding and disposal within the permissible period of 60 days from the date of issue summons in this matter for filing their Written Statement and affidavit and reply, list of documents they want to rely it is clear that the written statement should have been filed by end of November 1996 but the same was filed at their will, wish & leisure on 20.02.97 without getting leave for the condoning of delay beyond 60 days from the receipt of copies of Suit and Notice of Motion under summons dated.....Sept 1996
b) Order passed by Justice J. N. Patel on 23.07.96 and 06.08.96 where in reply to the point raised by Original Plaintiff regarding late AKM Aga had not given divorce to Original plaintiff and their was no Will executed by Late AKM Aga and even if a Muslim Person wants to prepare a will his entitle to make will of only 1/3 of his wealth/ assets for the Purpose of giving same strictly to charity to stranger who is not related to him while replying to this two points raised before the Justice J. N. Patel the Defendant No.1 and 2’s Advocate Miss Sarkhot did not Agree to it and said that there is a will & divorce given to Original Plaintiff the Justice J. N. Patel given two week time to the defendant No.1 and 2 to file Affidavit and reply with facts of documents as the same was not filed by the defendant No.1 and 2 as per their style of functioning Justice J. N. Patel passed the order that the his order dated 23.07.96 continue till further order.
c) While the matter was heard before Justice S. H. Kapadia on 27.7.97, in response to the Additional Affidavit dated 24.06.97 heard before him the matter regarding forged and fabricated Agreement to sell documents was produced by the Defendant No.1 and 2 which without going into details of the Agreement it was hurriedly and inadvertently considered as leave and license Agreement and on the strength of leave and license agreement the Defendants No.1 was considered to have been asking for maintenance receipt in her name which was considered as safe for plaintiff as well as the Co-op. Society though in fact the said Agreement to sell submitted to Society was having the clause empowering the purchaser of the said shop to apply for transfer of share Certificate.
d) In Written Statement filed without the leave granted for the delay, the documents to be RELIED UP ON are required to be filed after the authenticity is verified by court associate, the procedure had not been completed by the court associate and the declaration in the form of documents RELIED UP ON is not verified and list of documents with misleading title of ‘DOCUMENTS RELATED UP ON’ is verified by the associate which shows the negligence on the part of Judicial Administration to favor the defendant if the fraud wording ‘DOCUMENTS RELATED UP ON’ goes unnoticed for the time being and if ultimately later on the agreement to sale dated 17.6.93 is proved to be fake then commitment in absence of RELIED UP ON will save the defendant and their advocate from the clutches of law as the irrelevant phrase call ‘DOCUMENTS RELIED UP ON is used with ulterior criminal motive to escape if matter goes against the Defendant No. 1and 2 and their Advocate on noticing the meaning of RELIED UP ON & RELATED UP ON with complete knowledge implication of Law in the absence of what is pointed above.
20. Justice A. Y. Sakhare on his own risk and overconfidence without going into the above referred details accepted the copies of Agreement to sale, fraudulently registered without the signature of the seller to the Agreement of sell of late AKM Aga on page No11 of consideration of Rs.120000/- received as also the latter dated 16.06.97 from society and payment receipt to MSEB, passed his order without verifying the said agreement which only relevant in this case amongst the above mention three documents submitted. The said agreement fraudulently registered had no signature of the seller i.e. late AKN Aga, for total consideration of Rs.1, 20,000/-.
21. It is surprising to note that Defendant No.1 and 2 Advocate Miss. Sarkhot had called Adv. A. S. Oka as counsel who had submitted this copy of Agreement for sell and the letter & Receipt of MSEB, related to shop at Mumbra Adv. Shri. A.S. Oka who now is seating judge had not gone into the genuineness of said Agreement for sell and said uncertified copy of Agreement with last Registered page No.11 for receipt produced before Justice A. Y. Sakhare who did not through it necessary to see whether the duly verified by then court Associate copy of the said agreement produced before him by Shri. A. S. Oak is on judicial records i.e. in the said Suit file for comparing said documents with the copy of Agreement in the Suit file. This raises finger toward the functioning and intention of then seating Ex-Judge Justice A. Y. Sakare and then Ex-conceal and present seating Judge Shri. A. S. Oka.
22. If the above two points would have been considered by Justice A. Y. Sakhare then there was no other go for him but to direct the defendant No.1 to apply for the leave before the court to consider condoning of delay in filing the Affidavit in reply and written Statements along with documents etc, on which Defendant No.1 and 2 were to rely upon. It was unjust on the part of Justice A. Y. Sakhare to illegally accept the Xerox copies of the documents produced before the Justice S. H. Kapadia, without going into the Suit file for comparing documents submitted by defendants. 1) Request letter dated 16.06.97 to society 2) Copy o the illegally Registered incomplete documents of Agreements to Sell of shop at Mumbra 3) Receipt in her name for payment she had made for transfer of Electric meter to MSEB, Mumbra.
23. While disposing of Notice of Motion 2052 of 1996 on 1811.97 Hon’ble Justice A.Y Sakhare rejected the prayer of appointment of Court Receiver of properties of deceased as he had not gone through the documents on Court records and even after repeatedly pointing out by the original Plaintiff about the submission fraudulently register of incomplete documents, by the Sub-Register office, at Thane, Hon’ble Justice A.Y Sakhare fail prey to the gimmicks and blatant untruth projected before him and has passed the orders rejecting all the prays of the original plaintiff through Notice of Motion No. 2052 of 1996 and given the possession of the properties of deceased AKM Aga , in the said order Justice A.Y.Sakhare directed Defendant No. 1 and 2 to file undertaking of they have got the possession of properties of deceased.
24. This has resulted into great injustice to the Original Plaintiff and she had no other alternative but to file another Notice of Motion 1752/99 dated 21.06.1999 covering the points which where overlooked by Hon’ble Justice A.Y Sakhare as had not gone into the genuinely of the Xerox copy of the Agreement for transfer produced as registered documents before the Hon’ble Court with intention that the Court should take cognizance of serious allegations and charges levied against the defendants in the course of disposing of this Notice of motion 1752 of 1999 filed on 21.06.99.
25. In the said Notice of motion 1752 of 1999 in addition to the fabricated documents came before the Hon’ble Court but as the cognizance of the same in proper perspective was not taken with due consideration for following .
A). Along with deed of Agreement to transfer was fraudulently attached and irrelevant stamp receipt for payment received(Rs. 1,20,000/-) towards consideration of the deed of transfer of shares of property. This irrelevant receipt was having forged signature of the deceased AKM Aga the transformer to the Agreement to the said fraudulently registered incomplete Agreement. Now the Handwriting Expert report of CID, Pune has also confirm that the signature of transformer to the Agreement Mr. AKM Aga is a forged signature this adds to the further seriousness about the forge documents mentioned in this Notice of Motion 1752 of 1999.
B). The fraudulently disparity in wording of I) Declaration by Defendant No.1 in the presence of Advocate K.Z. Azmi dated 01.06.96 filed along with said fraudulent incomplete documents registered. II) Irrelevant Receipt attached with the said Agreement , to have received the consideration amount Rs. 1,20,000/ for the Agreement dated 17.06.93 in the above the declaration made is for the payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the Builder as against what is mention in the above vide the said fraudulent receipt is for payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- made to the transformer late AKM Aga this fraudulently disparity created is to mislead the court and avail illegal benefits by depriving the Legitimate rights of Original Plaintiff
C). In response to the order passed By Hon’ble Justice A.Y Sakhare on 18.11.97 Defendant No.1 had falsely declared to have withdrawn Rs. 11,000/- from Syndicate Bank, and other withdrawals from the same bank by the Defendant No.1 as also had not disclosed in the affidavit in reply dated 02.12.97 about the withdrawals made from accounts of deceased in Bank of India, Bombay Mercantile Co-O- Bank Ltd as also amount due towards NSC this all together work out to be as Under.
I) Syndicate Bank Rs,50,000/- not disclosed
II) Bank of India
III) Bombay Mercantile Co-O- Bank 90,000/- not disclosed
IV) NSC Rs. 20,000/- not disclosed
thus in all Sum of Rs, 235,000/- withdrawn by the Defendant no.1 where fraudulently not declared in the Affidavit in reply dated 02.12.97 on the order passed by the Hon’ble Justice A.Y. Sakhare dated 18.11.97, thus the Defendant No.1 have made contempt of court which is made unseen by the Hon’ble Justice D.K. Deshmukh when the Notice of Motion 1752 of 1999 was heard and decided without going into the details of “the some of the documents” which Hon’ble Justice had accepted to have fabricated as alleged by the Original Plaintiff.
D). In the Written Statement filed by Defendant No.1 and 2 have irresponsible and with a view to misguide the Hon’ble Court, has made false and baseless statement that the Defendant No.3 hereto Mr. Mehmood Aga is not son of deceased from his first wife Latifa.
26. On the lines of the above so many falls statements and deeds against the law are committed by the Defendant No.1 and 2 I) Like transferred the Gas Connection in Defendant No. 2 name. II) Illegally transferred Electric Meter in her name of shop at Mumbra and documents from Gas agency and MSEB Mumbra in this respect are also brought on record which ought to have been gone through while deciding the Notice of Motion No. 1752 of 1999 by Honorable Justice D. K. Deshmukh on 28.02.01.
27. The Original Plaintiff Haleema to the Suit No. 2051 of 1996 thereafter expired on 12.01.04 as such Defendant No.3 son of deceased AKM Aga filed Chamber Summons No.927 of 2006 dated 25.07.2006 filed for transportation of Defendant No.3 Mr. Mehmood Aga as Plaintiff No.1 in the said suit No.2051 of 1996 the said Chamber Summons was decided by the Hon’ble Justice D.G. Karnik on 08.06.2008 and said Chamber Summons was granted prays of Mr. Mehmood Aga son of deceased AKM Aga as Plaintiff to Suit.
28. The Said exhaustive Notice of Motion Containing around 620 pages giving documents evidences in respect of misdeed and illegal acts to grab the said property in question by the Defendant No. 1 and 2 in Suit No. 4170 0f 2008 had come for hearing before Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude on 05.03.09 at about 1.30PM where the Advocate for Defendant No. 1 and 2 Miss Sarkhot was not present but the Plaintiff in-person Mr. Mehmood Aga was present Who brought to the Notice of Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude that the copy of the Agreement dated 17.06.93 on record of the Court is forged and fabricated as also illegally with conspiracy registered with the Sub-Register Office at Thane, he also brought to the notice of Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude that the irrelevant receipts for payment of consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- for the Fulfillment of Agreement is not as per the records of the Sub-Register office at Thane and said receipt not bearing Registered Stamp as page No.11 of said documents Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude was surprised by the statement of the Plaintiff in person Mr. Mehmood Aga and he was kind enough to compare the copy of Agreement and the said receipts on the records of court and that of collected by the Plaintiff from the Sub-Register Office at Thane as certified copy with Sub-Register stamp
29. After going through the page by page of the said copy of the documents on court record in the said suit filed and the certified copy produced by the Plaintiff Hon’ble Justice A.V. Nirgude realized that the charges made by the Plaintiff on Defendant No.1 and 2 of fraudulently submitting number of forged and fabricated documents on records of the Court and he passed the order as follows.
I) No. order at this stage because the earlier order was passed in 1997. Assuming that the allegations are truthful, still ad-interim stage no order can be passed.
II) The Notice of Motion shall be listed for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude
Hon’ble Justice A.V. Nirgude who had sense the pulse of the case and realized that the all allegations made by the Plaintiff are truthful the said Notice of Motion was come for hearing on due date was to as per his order, Plaintiff moved precipe for bringing the matter early on the board on hearing the precipe on 18.03.09 Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude kept the matter for final disposal and hearing on 20.04.09 to the misfortunate of the Plaintiff Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude was transferred to other seating /bench on 06.04.09 and matter was first heard by Hon’ble Justice A.P.Deshpande on 20.04.09 at about 1.15PM the Plaintiff In person Mr. Mehmood Aga had brought to the Notice Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande that the order passed by Hon’ble Justice A.V. Nirgude on 05.03.09 with due consideration to the following emphasized by the Plaintiff in person allegation of forged and Fabricated documents are submitted by the Defendant No.1 and 1 on the record of the High Court and pointed out to the Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande that allegations of Criminal nature made on Defendants No. 1and 2 by the Plaintiff such as submitting below.
a) Incomplete documents without consideration receipts bearing Page No. 11 of the documents have no signature of the transferor and still fraudulently registered as part of Criminal Conspiracy between the defendant no. 1 and 2 and their Advocates at different stages and the concern office and staff of the Sub-Registrar office, at Thane
b) Submitting forged and fabricated irrelevant receipts for Rs. 1,20,000/- to have received toward as consideration amount by the transferor AKM Aga who expired on 15.05.96 in J.J. Hospital that is before the date of registration of this documents on 01.06.96 without the letter of probate acquired by the legal heirs of the deceased AKM Aga.
On hearing the stunning statements of Plaintiff in person and after going through the order passed by the previous Hon’ble Justice A.V. Nirgude in this matter on his order that the allegations of regarding submission of forged and fabricated documents are fraudulently , Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande realized the seriousness of the matter and could envisage the repercussions on the I) Judicial System II) Judicial Administration through Court Associate, Prothonotary & Senior Master. III) Registrar/ Registrar General IV)Judges of High Court in chair V) some of Advocates involved in such Acts and Activities amounting to mislead the Hon’ble Court.
.
.
30. As result realization of involvement of all mentioned in above categories on account of what is pleaded in person by the Plaintiff which is nothing but the blatant truth . It appear that the Hon’ble Justice A.P.Deshpande wanted to save the persons in above categories as such he insisted upon the Plaintiff in person Mr. Mehmood Aga to appoint an advocate for this case instead of appearing in person. It is interesting to note in this Suit that the Advocate appointed and appeared for Original Plaintiff before a) Hon’ble Justice S.H.Kapadia b) Hon’ble Justice A.Y. Sakhare c) Hon’ble Justice D.K. Deshmukh have miserably failed as they had fails to study and understand the issues came up before above Hon’ble Judges time to time in the course of hearing given to Notice of Motions as also Affidavits filed in the Notice of Motions.
In the light of above the Plaintiff as had through study in details about the case decided to plead in person so as to bring all illegalities and irregularities committed due to indifference or overconfidence shown by concern individual at different stages. It appeared to Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande that truth is coming out, due to 'in person pleading' of the Plaintiff Mr. Mehmood Aga, is bound to bring numbers of individual and officers of the Court into awkward position and this only can be overcome by managing with the Advocate if appointed by the Plaintiff to this Suit must be the intention of the Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande in insisting upon Plaintiff to appoint Advocate for this case which is highly objectionable and against this reviling of truth before the judicial forum.
It appears that Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande wanted to study the case is always welcome. If any seating Judges shows interest in understanding matter in details and gives adjournments for 10 to 15 days before the matter is heard by him as seating Justice.
It is unfortunate that the seating Judge was not showing his willingness to hear the Plaintiff in person Mr. Mehmood Aga , Who has fully studied the case and has been pointing out illegalities committed by the defendants No. 1 and 2 and involvement of all others, knowingly or unknowingly, in this act of illegalities. Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande advising Mr. Mehmood Aga to appoint an Advocate to plead his matter on 05.05.09 when matter was heard before Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande, needs through investigations.
Some time back around fifty Judges of Ahmadabad High Court where asked to step down for their handling the matter before them on different ground on which they fails to perform in parting the justice. On this background it is worth while to refer to the Supreme Court judgment given by the bench of Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh and Hon’ble Justice P.B.Sawanth in the Civil Appeal No. 994 of 1972, D/27.10.93, S.P. Chegalvraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. –Appellant Versus Jaganath (dead) by L. Rs. Appeared in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853, in the said matter bench of Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh and Hon’ble Justice P.B. Sawanth have given clear cut direction that “The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the courts, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court; he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. “A litigation, which approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If withhold a vital documents in order to gain advantage on the other side than he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.” We are constrained to say that more often than not process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, Tax-evaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the courts process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.”
Similarly matter in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O.O.C.J.) Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Chamber Summons No.220 of 2005 moved in Suit No. 1780 of 1993 where in M/s. Vijay Enterprises …. Plaintiffs. Versus Gopinath Mahade Koli & Ors… Defendants. While deciding the matter the Hon’ble Justice S.U. Kamdar Vide order dated 20.04.06 under Para 6 has concluded and opined that “Now the time has come when the litigants are utilizing the fabricated documents rampantly. Now the time has also come where people are making statements on oath and in Court precedings which are blatantly false to their own knowledge. Now a days parties are using false documents with a view to achieve orders which they desire to obtain. It is needless to state that justice delivery system has to be pure and should be such that the persons who are approaching the Courts and filing the proceedings must be afraid of using fabricated documents and also of making false statements on oath . We are a Court of Law sitting here to ascertain the truth and give justice in accordance the Law to establish truth and not being mislead by the advocates and the parties in the various directions so as to make it almost impossible to give effective and truthful justice to the litigants at large. In my opinion keeping in mind the aforesaid position it is high time that where the people have blatantly used the fabricated documents for the purpose of achieving the desired result even by misleading the court and/or by making false statement and by using fabricated documents cannot escape the penalties.”
The matter, bearing Suit No.2051 of 1996 in High Court O.S. Mumbai is being tossed and the Plaintiff is sent from pillar to post in the course of his demand for Justice, is required to be looked into and dealt with on the above sighted cases. The above explained detailed study of Suit No.2051 of 1996 and Zest of the case put forth by the undersigned is a part of forum of justice’s complaint in public interest in general and the interest of gearing up of the justice to the Plaintiff in Suit No. 2051 of 1996 and to set right the judicial Administration and break criminal tendency growing up through the sort of criminal rackets of some of the members the Advocates’ faculty in and around prestigious compound of Mumbai High Court in particular and other High Courts and Courts in general.
The above studied elaboration about the Suit No. 2051 of 1996 and related Notice of Motion No. 4170 of 2008 with 620 pages covering all misdeeds of defendant No.1 with criminal conspiracy will help in carrying out the through investigation on the lines of orders passed by Supreme Court bench of Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh and Hon’ble Justice P.B. Sawanth as also Hon’ble Justice S.U. Kamdar of Bombay High Court.
Madhav G. Deshpande, President
FORUM FOR JUSTICE
(Appellant)
On this 08th Decembe 2010.
At Mumbai.
******************************************************************
BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF BOMBAY
UNDER
CENTRAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-2005.
First Appeal under Section 19(1)
Madhav Gajanan Deshpande.. President
Forum for Justice, 7 Kaustubhdham CHSLtd.,
23, Sanghani Estate, Ghatkopar Mumbai-86………………….Appellant
V/S
Smt. U. S. Srivastava , Master and Asstt. Prothonotary
And Public Information Officer High Court Mumbai……..Respondent
In response to my application under Section 6(1) of Right to Information Act 2005, the Public Information Officer is expected to furnish me the particulars of information solicited by way of the copies of the observations, findings, of the enquiry made in to my complaint letters dated 05th and 08th June 2009 in respect of supposed to be duty bound role and functions performed by parties involved in seeking and parting the justice in the Suit No.2051 of 1996 and the Notice of Motion No.2052 of 1996 and thereafter number of Notices of Motion moves and Chamber summons and Affidavits etc filed in the course seeking truthful and fair disposal of the said suit etc.
It is observed that after persistent pursuing, even after 30 days, the specific information on the serious lapses amount to criminal acts, mentioned in my complaint, it appears no serious cognizance is taken on different concern level. Please note that I have considered it necessary to bring to the notice of judicial authority and administration "my knowing of crime being committed as not informing to supreme authority (here the judiciary), is consider to have committed crime".
In the light of the above I request the Appellate Authority to direct the Public Information Officer to furnish me with information about, if any, action taken and investigation conducted or so motto criminal action taken on those who are party to crimes, of different nature, connected with this Suit, within judicial administration and or out side parties organizations (Bar Council of India) connected with this Suit. It is expected to get point wise information on the 32 points as per my earlier Rejoinder and 33 to 42 points under this Rejoinder of my complaint as mentioned below which may please be considered as my additional rejoinder to the reply given by the Public Information Officer. This exercise is with intention to streamline and that the a) Judiciary Administration b) Parting of Justice System c) releasing uncalled for load on the Judges so that they will have time to go through the matters before them in details and only take the opinion of Advocates of the both the side before they reduce their studies finding in the form of orders/Judgments d) Bar Council of India will function within the guidelines and powers given under the constitution of the said body and will not give lame excuses like " Matter is before Honorable High Court" etc and help and assist the courts by providing their finding to courts for speedy justice and due action on Advocates.
In this case, it is unfortunately, is observed that the Judges who have handle this matters for the purpose of parting justice, due to overload, have not gone into the merits and facts mentioned in the Suit No.2051 of 1996 with Notice of Motion No.2052 of 1996 wherein the plaintiff No.1 Mrs. Haleema widow of late Mr. Abdul Kadar Moosa Aga had prayed that Plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 made in this suit by the plaintiff to support her, are the only legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Abdul Kadar Moosa Aga, who are entitled to inherit the movable and immovable property as per Mohmedian Law.
Points No. 33 to 42 under Complaint dated 08/06/2009 tkaken for this Rejoinder:
33. The Defendants in this matter in general and Defendant No.1 in particular who is the practicing Advocate and by Law suppose to be officer of the Court it appear to have been involved in criminal acts and misleading judicial forum, in, connivance with sum of her Advocates associates in this matter and some of the judicial members/staff/officers as mentioned in above mention paragraphs also in connivance with the staff and officer of following Governments and Semi Governments Organizations etc.
a) Syndicate bank, Byculla “ E” Branch : In the record of above bank the Defendants in this matter have change the name of original nominee who now Plaintiff in this matter and being son of deceased was on record declared as his nominee. In the course of this criminal act on the part of Defendants they have issued letter dated 16.09.95 to the said Branch Manager on which appear signature similar to that of account holder of account no.3267 who now deceased . It is to note here that as per law, change of nominee or addition in name of nominee is effected by filing the prescribed form of variation in nomination and accordingly this form become the attachment of the original form. The bank authorities have not followed this legal procedure and hand in glows have illegally taken the Defendants no.1 Miss Roshan A. Baig sole Nominee, and allowed her to withdraw cash amount of Rs.50,000/- with thump impression of late AKM Aga. The necessary documents in respect of criminal acts and silence shown by J.J. Marge Police Station authorities in investigation in this respect even through numbers of complaints lodged by this plaintiff in respect of several criminalities done by the Defendant No. 1 all documentary evidences with correspondence made and reply received from banks and other authorities are part of 620 pages of Notice of Motion No.4170 of 2008. Similar criminal authorities in respects of banks of deceased with Bank of India of Nagpada Branch and Bombay Merchentile Co-op Bank Ltd at Kara Tank Road Branch are played criminal activities by the Defendants No. 1 and 2. The documentary evidences and other related papers at page No. 430 to 484 for Syndicate bank, Byculla “ E” Branch, Bank of India of Nagpada Branch and Bombay Merchentile Co-op Bank Ltd at Kara Tank Road Branch, the accompaniments in the Notice of Motion No.4170 of 2008 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996.
34. In respect of the complaints made to J.J. Marg Police Station, the documentary evidence and other related papers are at page No. 565 to 579 as accompaniments in the Notice of Motion No.4170 of 2008 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996 , where J.J. Marg Police Station had not registered FIR or not taken cognizes against accused Miss. Roshanara A. Baig and others.
35. Attitude of Hand writing expert C.I.D. Pune :
The Hand writing Expert CID, Pune has hand in glows with the Defendants No.1 in Suit No.2051of 1996 who is accused in case filed by Plaintiff at JMFC, Naupada Court , Thane case No. OMA 106/2002 (Present case RCC No. 214 of 2004) has conveniently refused to give their comparison and expert opinion on signature of Registration page No.11 of forged and fabricated Registered Agreement of transfer dated 17.06.93. The same if investigated by the High Court by passing orders by going through the documentary evidence related papers on page No.264 to 342 Mentioned in the Notice of Motion No.4170 of 2008 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996.
36. The defendant No.1 hand in glows with MSEB Mumbra authorities has illegally and by using the said fraudulent agreement got the electricity meter bill transferred in her name when Suit is Pending in High Court Original side Mumbai .
37. The Hon’ble justice A.Y. Sakhare in his order passed on 18.11. 97 has specifically made mention in para 5 of his order that “the Agreement dated 17.06.93 and confirmation deed dated 01.06.96 are relied upon”. While relying upon the agreement dated 17.06.93 and confirmation deed 01.06.96 the Hon’ble Justice A.Y. Sakhare should have seen agreement for transfer dated 17.06.93, before him, is a complete document dully registered by Sub-registrar office at Thane for all the relevant 11 pages with registration stamp and also verified by the High Court associate while admitting the same as record as proof of evidence relied upon by the Defendant No.1 and 2 . The Hon’ble justice A.Y. Sakhare has seen logical calculation while he found to be correct but failed to see the said logical calculate are primarily multiplied by zero that is by producing fraudulent and incomplete documents which was got registered by part of criminal conspiracy by Defendant No.1 at office of sub- registrar office at Thane thus has led to wrong orders doing injustice to Plaintiff. The Hon’ble justice A.Y. Sakhare while relying upon agreement dated 17.06.93 and confirmation deed dated 01.06.96 had skipped the absence of 11th page of said transferred document, which forms the consideration receipts for consideration amount to give validity to the agreement. Then Hon’ble Registrar General and present Hon’ble Justice Mrs. Mrudula Bhatkar while giving hearing on the Plaintiff’s complaint, passed order dated 27.08.08 that “ Applicant’s grievance regarding missing of one page i.e. Page No.11 in one registered document dated 17.06.1993 may be correct. However, for disappearance of missing of this one page, Court staff cannot be held responsible because there is no proof or evidence to show that the said document when tendered and taken in record was a complete document with page no.11, Hence , complaint is filed”.
38. Above orders passed by Hon’ble Justice Mrs. Mrudula Bhatkar are surprising and reflect badly on functioning of the Court associate and office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. In other ward there is no all proof system in receiving the documentary evidence submitted by the Defendant No.1 in their defense and which they rely upon. It goes without saying that in such type of administration functioning, one who has excess and influence, can tamper the record and change the submitted documents /papers as he likes or benefits. This required through investigation scanning and remodeling of judicial administration responsible for accepting and mentioning documents on judicial record.
39. Regarding Approach of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa :
Approach of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa is to protect the Advocate Miss Roshanara A.baig Defendant No.1 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996. It is expected of practicing Advocates, who are considered to be officer and guides of the Judiciary, to be transparent in their functioning as professional persons and are expected to be free from other misconduct on every walk of life.
40. In the Suit No. 2051 of 1996 Miss Roshanara A.Baig is Defendant No.1 and by professional in practicing Advocate she is represented and assisted by one Advocate Miss. J.A Sarkhot in the above mentioned Suit. In this Suit Mr. Mehmood Aga was Defendant No.3 in the initial stage, now is Plaintiff in Suit No. 2051 of 1996 which is before High Court , Mumbai since 1996 and very recently had come for hearing on 05.05.09 Hon’ble Justice A. P. Deshpande with reference to the above matter and the number of acts amounting to criminalities observed. The then Defendant No.3 and presently Plaintiff who, in his personal capacity, had complainant to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 25.10.1999 against other misconduct of Advocate Roshanara A. Baig for her involvement in forged and fabricated documents for her personal benefits in relation to the Suit No. 2051 of 1996 where she is Defendant no.1. The issues raised by the complainant in his complaint are on the record of the Bar Council of India, the matter was heard before the Advocate V. A.Gangan , Member for Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa where Advocate V. A.Gangan on 04.05.2000 appraised Miss Roshanara baig of charges made against her by the complainant and asked her explanation on the forgery and fabrication of documents etc, to which she had no reply, Advocate V. A.Gangan, Member for Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa found prima fascia substance in the complaint referred the matter to Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.
41. The matter was before Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for about one year due to non cooperation of respondent Adv. Miss Roshanara A.Baig the matter was ultimately transferred to Bar Council of India both parties where heard before the Bar Council of India in detail and relied seriousness and gravity of the charges against respondent Adv. Miss Roshanara A. Baig by the complaint even of Bar Council of India was reluctant to go into merits of the case and Shirked their responsibility under the guise that the matter where in Advocate Miss Roshanra A Baig is defendant No.1 is pending before High Court and other matter where is Defendant no.1 Miss Roshanara A. Baig is accused before the JMFC, Naupada Court at Thane .
42. An Advocate fraternity consider as helping hand to office of Judiciary and their independent decision in respect of their functioning of their members without a drop of his conduct in their professional practice the above mentioned matters High Court and JMFC, Naupada Court at Thane has no relevance in proceeding further in the complaint and Bar Council of India’s findings and decision on the complaint in respect of misconduct, If any, of the Respondent Advocate will act as helping hand to the Judicial platform at High Court level and as also at JMFC , Naupada Court at Thane level which will strengthen their hand if the independent body like Bar Council of India decide the complaint and forward the copy , if necessary to the Judiciary platform.
Directions should be given to the independent body like Bar Council of India which is primarily made to stop the misconduct of their advocate members in the professional practice of Advocates and the grievances of their clients.
With highest regards to this Appellate authority and the Judiciary which has remained the only hope for common citizen facing torched of the corruption penetrated almost every walk of life.
On this 06th May 2011.
At Mumbai.
Madhav G. Deshpande……. President
FORUM FOR JUSTICE
(Appellant)
