@factcheckdotorg @PIBFactCheck @FactCheckIndia @timesfactcheck @boomlive_in
IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE CUSTODIANS OF JUSTICE,”HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA” ABUSE AUTHORITY TO HELP LAWOFFENDER BANK OF INDIA ABSOLVE OF LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF POOR #MSME & AND TO USURP SEVENTY LACS OF APs
FACTS OF THE CASE
(1) 1st generation entrepreneur MSME, YCSPL (Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt ltd ) has worked for 123 mnths as per order of RODRT PUNE dtd 26.7.2006 ('Recovery Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal Pune') in the interest of Bank of India without single complaint, till unconditionally absolved of responsibility by the Honble Supreme court of India by order dated 13.7.2017 in CA5150/2017.
(2) As per the order dated 26.7.2006 it was responsibility of bank of India to pay charges of YCSPL but Bank of India paid only for six months and did not pay thereafter under the pretext that Bank of India had entered into settlement with its judgment debtor and therefore did not want to incur further expenses for maintenance of auctioned property.
(3) YCSPL held possession of auctioned property from 9.11.2006 to 8.8.2017 on behalf of RODRT PUNE.
(4) Possession of auctioned property was not handed over to auction purchasers on 13.11.2006 because of obstruction by police department on the basis of stay order of Small causes Court Pune in MCA157/2006.
(5) Because Police department obstructed the judicial body RODRT Pune in administration of justice to transfer possession to auction Purchasers on 13.11.2006, therefore contempt proceedings were initiated against Pune Police commissioner shri Jadhav, asst Police commissioner shri Shinde, other three police inspectors, shri. Kadri, shri sankpal, and shri kakde. The contempt proceedings were withdrawn after they tendered apology.
(6) Bcoz bank of India did not pay charges of YCSPL therefore YCSPL being a registered MSME invoked provisions of MSMED Act 2006 before MSMEDF Council Pune vide Petition 28/2012 against RODRT PUNE & Bank of India. MSMEDF Council Pune passed an award on 12.9.2012 in favor of YCSPL and directed RODRT Pune to ensure that the charges of YCSPL are paid by Bank of India, and directed Bank to pay YCSPL its charges within a month.
(7) Bank filed a belated application as per sec 19 of MSMED Act 2006 MCA 352 before Addnl District judge Pune, which was dismissed on merits.
(8) Bank again filed 2nd appeal vide ARA15/2014 before Honble High Court Mumbai which was dismissed after imposing additional fine of five lacs on Bank to pay YCSPL.
(9) After the award had attained finality and when Honble High Court Mumbai had refused to grant further stay, the award was put to execution vide DKT 1741/2012 and YCSPL was granted partial claim of Rs ten million plus interest thereon on 18.4.2016.
THE FRAUD- MISREPRESNTATION N SUPRESSION OF FACTS
(10) Bank files SLP/CA5150/2012 in Honble Supreme court of India through Sr. Counsel Dushyant Dave and Vipin Kumar Jai (AoR) Mr. Vipul Jai, Adv.Mrs. S. Dinkar,Adv..
a. Bank misled the Honble Supreme court of India saying that possession of subject property was transferred to Auction Purchasers on 13.11.2006.
b. Bank and its advocate also submitted a fictitious, fraudulent “Acknowledgement of Possession” which is non-existent in records of 6/2002 before 'Recovery Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal Pune'. And which was not signed by RODRT Pune or YCSPL who were holding possession of property.
c. Bank suppressed documents like order dtd 29.6.2007 of 'Recovery Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal Pune' directing Bank to continue paying charges of YCSPL till the auction sale is set aside by appropriate authority. And if wanted Bank can take possession after paying update charges of YCSPL.
d. Bank suppressed that, that in the dispute of payment between a buyer situated anywhere in India and supplier situated in Jurisdiction of MSMEDF Council, the MSMEDF Council has overriding jurisdiction as per sec 24 of 'The Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006’.
e. Bank suppressed that as per sec 5 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996’, there can be no judicial intervention in execution of an arbitral award, as it is not explicitly provided for.
f. Bank suppressed that there is no provision of second appeal for setting aside an award as per MSMED Act 2006, still Bank had filed ARA15/14 before Honble High Court Mumbai and had challenged the dismissal of ARA 15/14.
g. Bank Suppressed that it had obtained order dated 24.7.2008 in Appeal 25/2007 before 'Presiding Officer DRT Pune' by re-litigation and fraud of misrepresentation and perjury.
(11) Honble Supreme court of India vide order dated 6.4.2017, Hnble Justice Kurian Joseph, and Justice R.Bhanumati, impleaded auction Purchasers for 1st time in litigation, between YCSPL & BANK, right before Honble Supreme court of India level.
(12) The Auction Purchasers have paid the total bid amount in 2006, but still, even till date fourteen years have passed, they have not received the possession of the property purchased in Auction whose total price has been paid by them.
(13) That the respondent no 4, Pradip Bhansali has expired, committed suicide due to financial problems in 2011. And YCSPL submitted death certificate by a separate IA on record. The proceedings stand abated automatically, but still proceedings continued and final order was passed.
(14) Without impleading heirs of Pradip Bhansali and without giving opportunity to argue to Auction Purchasers the Honble Supreme court of India passed order dated 5.12.17(denying principles of natural justice) imposing liability on them to pay 108 mnts charges of YCSPL. And Bank to pay charges of 15 mnts after adjusting amount received by YCSPL.
DELIBERATE DENIAL OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE & ACCESS TO JUSTICE TO SUPRESS THE FRAUD BY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(15) THE auction purchasers filed Review Petition 2246/18 submitting fraud committed by Bank of India, and denial of principles of justice, but it was placed before the same judges who having passed the order themselves, had predetermined and preconceived therefore dismissed it without giving an opportunity to argue the case.
(16) The Auction Purchasers then invoked remedy of Curative petition, civil,165/2019 submitting fraud committed by Bank of India, and denial of principles of justice, it was placed before the then CJI Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, present CJI S.A.Bobde, Shrimati R. Bhanumati, & Shri Ramanna but again it was dismissed without giving an opportunity to argue and present true facts. The curative was dismissed not being in terms of provisions provided in Rupa hurra.
(17) Even the bench which dismissed 165/2019 it did not consist of three senior most judges at that time as was specified in the case of Rupa hurra case.
(18) YCSPL also filed Review Petition civil by no 777/18 submitting fraud committed by Bank of India, and denial of principles of justice, but it was placed before the same judges who having passed the order themselves had predetermined and preconceived therefore dismissed it.
(19) YCSPL has not yet filed curative Petition because they cannot afford to buy a certification by a Senior Advocate with regard to the fulfillment of the requirements prescribed in Rupa Hura case.
(20) YCSPL filed WP 189/18 seeking directions to Bank to pay as per law for the period of 15 months ascertained by Honble Supreme court of India. However the Honble Supreme court of India (JUDGES: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) directed to agitate grievance of breach of rights before Honble High Court Mumbai under provisions of Article 226. YCSPL Filed a wp 3809/18 before Honble High Court Mumbai, however Justice Sonak did not entertain it because he said he was incapable to entertain self-represented litigation represented by authorized agent of a corporate entity.
(21) YCSPL filed WP D no 16417/18 seeking recall of order dated 5.12.17 in CA5150/17 passed by Honble Supreme court of India, for being obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, as per established principle by precedent in Chengalvarya Naidu case (AIR1994SC8530). However It was lodged as being non maintainable by Registrar, which when challenged vide MA2222/18 was not entertained (Judges Kurian Joseph & A.M.Khanvilkar) and therefore disposed denying access to justice and equality before law.
(22) YCSPL then filed MA with Dno 22066/18 seeking recall of order dated 5.12.17 in CA5150/17 passed by Honble Supreme court of India, for being obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, as per established principle by precedent in Chengalvarya Naidu case (AIR1994SC8530). However It was lodged as being non maintainable by Registrar, which when challenged vide MA237/19 was not entertained though the element of fraud played by Bank was noted by the 'Honble Court' ( Judges R.Bhanumati & R.Subhash Reddy) in order dated 9.4.19 and therefore disposed for being second application in the garb of recall. Despite bringing it to the notice of 'Honble Court' that in case of fraud even a second review is allowed. Thus denying access to justice and equality before law.
ABUSE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO SILENCE THE CLAIM BY ILLEGAL ARREST OF DECREE HOLDER
(23) As per the order dted 5.12.17 in CA 5150/17 of Honble Supreme court of India, the Bank was directed to pay the charges of 15 months after adjusting the amount paid to YCSPL. However Bank kept on repeatedly asking first for the amount paid to YCSPL, which was an impossible task for YCSPL. And because YCSPL could not deposit the amount first, the Bank applied and Addnl District judge Pune in DKT 1741/12 issued arrest and imprisonment order of Managing Director of YCSPL as per Order 21 Rule 38 of 'Code of Civil Procedure" which is meant to arrest a judgment debtor. Managing Director is not party to proceedings & not under any orders for compliance, still it is he who was under threats of arrest and imprisonment, intentionally deliberately to harass and humiliate. YCSPL is a Decree holder in the case. There is no provision in law, that a decree holder is arrested and imprisoned in decree execution proceedings still judicial authority was repeatedly abused for almost 600 days to threaten, humiliate and harass YCSPL & its Managing Director.
FRUSTRATED PUBLIC POLICY OF INDIA @MSMED ACT 2006 TO AVOID SICKNESS & CLOSURE OF #MSME BY SPEEDY RESOLUTION BY @ARBITRATION
(24) TODAY ,even after 156 months, despite working without single complaint, with funds borrowed heavily by extending capacity , as per order of 'Recovery Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal Pune' a judicial process under statute, in the interest of nationalized BANK of India , who is a state in terms of Article 12 of Constitution of India, Despite an arbitral award ascertained in favor of YCSPL under provisions of special mechanism with overriding effect @MSMED ACT 2006, which is concurrently upheld by two appellate courts, the lobby of senior counsel ,advocates and judges of Honble Supreme court of India foil legitimate claim of YCSPL #MSME by abuse of authority entrusted to it, just because YCSPL is poor and is self-represented by Party in Person who cannot be liberal to grease their palms.
(25) Bank of India has achieved its objective with the help of services of YCSPL. The claim of YCSPL against Bank has spiraled or escalated as per law due to mischief of Bank of India for which Bank itself is to be blamed.
(26) To absolve itself from the escalated payment by holding YCSPL at ransom ,the Bank , with the expert advice of advocates has misled judges of Honble Supreme court of India, who knowingly have relied on blatant lies and fraudulent evidence which otherwise is punishable offence.
(27) Because Bank is harping on blatant lies, and Honble Supreme court of India knowingly relying on it, the auction purchasers are unable to get possession of property for which they have paid fourteen years back. Bank has settled its dues from its borrower with the price money received from Auction Purchasers. The property is taken in possession by Judgment debtor and rented to RIO Motors.