THE SCI has passed order dated 5.12.2017 in CA 5150/17 by blindly relying on blatant lies, misrepresentation and suppression of vital facts  submitted intentionally by Managing Director, Bank of India, thru its Senior counsel Shri Dushyant Dave and AoR Vipin Rai to mislead the supreme court and obtain favorable order.

This example is strict proof that Judges of Supreme court are likely to pass order maliciously or inadvertently to favor a law offender or its senior counsel, advocate and therefore a prompt recourse to correct it  is necessary to maintain sanctity of judicial system 

Passing orders on basis of blatant lies and fictitious documents disgraces the judicial authority, and belief of common Indian in judiciary, and therefore there should be a provision that in case of allegation of fraud there should invariably inquiry, and on confirmation of fraud the order should be recalled, and the guilty be punished severely.

Its a very simple case but an example how Indian Judiciary and top most institutes of India are in haywire state not responsibly bound by Rule of law or Public policy of India but extraneous considerations to openly violate rights of humble and illegally favor a law offender.IT s an example of total failure of judiciary to protect rights of humble as per Rule of law.

Present Petitioner has  provided services for 123 months without single complaint in interest and at the request of Bank of India as per order of Debts Recovery Tribunal Pune ( a semi judicial authority under statute, under Finance Ministry Govt of India)the bank was supposed to pay every month but Bank compelled Petitioner to invest all his resources, and did not pay till date.

Petitioner's claim has been ascertained by an arbitral award as per MSMED Act/ Arbitration and reconciliation Act  and concurrently upheld by all lower courts. And it was partially executed also.

however supreme court was misled stating that the possession of property whose maintenance charges are being claimed by Petitioner, is transferred to Auction Purchasers, on basis of frustrated document "Acknowledgement of Possession" and therefore supreme court impleaded Auction Purchasers(1 expired in 2011) as party to litigation  in CA5150/17 and by order dated 5.12.17  imposed liability of 108 months out of 123 months on them. 

The property was never transferred to Auction Purchasers specifically on 13.11.2006 as there was active stay of court in MCA157/6 and obstruction by Police Department. It is on record that contempt proceedings were initiated by DRT Pune against Pune Police Commissioner, Asst Police commissioner, Police inspectors (Sahakarnagar) and police constables for obstructing transfer of possession to Auction Purchasers on and around 13.11.2006.

Bank very well knows that possession has never been given to Auction Purchasers till date as Bank had entered into agreement with its judgement debtor and therefore wanted to close the recovery proceedings. The document "Acknowledgement of Possession"  was taken upfront by bank from Auction Purchasers under false assurance that possession would be given to them. however since the possession was not given , the original is learnt to be torn by auction Purchasers. Petitioner is not party to it. And the said document is not Exhibited officially on record of DRT.

Bank has not paid charges even for 15 months as per law for the period as ascertained by supreme court, saying that because supreme court is silent on payment as per law therefore supreme court does not want us to be paid as per law. while seeking direction from supreme court WP189/18 on the subject, supreme court says that its orders by default mean everything as per law only, and nothing in contrary to law. therefore there is no necessity for explicit directions. As a result we have not been paid as per law because of Supreme court.

The Bank has refused to pay even for the period of 15 months as per order dated 5.12.17 in CA5150/17 of Supreme court which Bank has obtained by fraud.When Supreme court has ordered recovery of Rs 1.21 crore after adjusting due payment to us for fifteen months, still the Bank is  insisting that we should first pay Rs 1.21 crore and only thereafter Bank will pay us.We do not have any amount to pay as we have already spend the received amount in repaying loans. We are yet to pay large amount to creditors which Bank is aware. And because we are unable to pay therefore Bank has obtained arrest warrant as per Order 21 rule 38 of CPC against Managing Director who is a separate legal entity and limited by responsibility only to hand over properties of the company in his control. There's no provision in law to arrest a Decree Holder when Judgement debtor is seeking stay of execution Proceedings still the order is passed. Even Order 21 Rule 38 is specifically meant to arrest a Judgement Debtor, still warrants are being issued and reissued to harass, humiliate us. Canvassing contrary to orders of Supreme court is  a contempt  therefore we have filed Contempt Petition Dno 40378/19 on 9.11.19 but it is not listed till date. And since it is contempt of order obtained by fraud, therefore we have also prayed for recall of order for being obtained by fraud and damages as per Action per se.  auction Purchaser have paid total bid price in 2006 but still they have not got the possession till date. when they asked DRT for Possession DRT says that because supreme court has taken stand that possession has been given therefore they cannot open the subject differently. 

Bank of India and Bank of Baroda have cleared their NPAs from the bid price received from auction Purchasers.

Presently the original owner of property who has defaulted in repayment to Bank  has entered the property with help of Bank and has rented it by registered agreement to Dhone Brothers who are running a showroom for KIA Motors. 

The true facts were brought before the hnble court in review petition 777/18, & recall petition (fraud as per Chengalvarya naidu & other) but both were listed before the same hnble judges who having passed the impugned order themselves had preconceived intentions and therefore dismissed without hearing. 

because bank has not paid even for 15 months as per order of Supreme court therefore we had filed contempt Petition against the Bank, but it was dismissed as non maintainable.

we file an application MA18/20 requesting for inquiry in the matter, however it was dismissed at admission stage with oppressively fine for repeatedly agitating same cause.

this reflects sorry state of judicial system in India. Despite  providing services  without complaint for 123 months we cannot get legitimate payment even after continuous litigation for 14 years in the days of computer driven systems, AIs & Robot Justice. The award passed under MSMED Act 2006, specially to protect MSMEs from closure has been frustrated by Supreme court forcing us into unbearable starvation and closure.

And the auction Purchasers despite paying total bid price in 2006 cannot get possession because supreme court has taken stand that possession is given. However public sector govt  Banks clear their NPAs with that bid price.

it is unfortunate and shocking but proven truth that supreme court or judiciary in independent democratic India, does not strictly stand by  rule of law,  truth, public policy, constitutional provisions but work on whimsical, discretionary extraneous consideration to favor few of their choice. there is no accountability and responsibility , and resultant is as  absolute power corrupts absolutely. Every step $ every order in Indian judiciary is in arrays  with no adherence to rule of law. 

the supreme court has blocked remedy u/a 32 of coi under the self proclaimed assumption and presumption that orders of supreme court do no injustice.And constitution bench of same supreme court presumes that judges of Supreme court are humans ( Rupa hurra & Co) and therefore there is likely hood of an inadvertent error therefore they have started relief by way of curative, but only to those who can pay huge fees for a mandatory certificate from senior counsel. access to remedy under curative is not impeded to party in person and majority Indians who are poor.

Petitioner is confident that his is not a case in rarity but common, and he is in fact voicing millions of middle class Indians.

it is therefore very necessary that it should be mandatory that every application alleging fraud by misrepresentation, fictitious documents or manipulation/suppression of facts should be inquired, and on confirmation the same should be recalled and the guilty be punished.