CHEATER

Maplle Infraprojects

DIRECTORS

ATUL PAREKH

Managing Director

ADITYA PAREKH

Non-Executive Director

JAYSUKH MASHRU

Independent Director

RAVI SETH

Independent Director

ASSOCIATES/CONSULTANTS

TUSHAR DESAI & ASSOCIATES

Consulting Architect

VERTICOHORIZON

(MAHESH SHELKE)

Architect, SRA Projects

MAK & ASSOCIATES, INDORE

Statutory Auditors

P. MAHESHWARI &

ASSOCIATES

Consulting Company Secretary

Man Excellenza, Opp. Juhu Airport Entrance, S.V. Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai - 400056

+91-22-26124411 / info@mapllegroup.co.in

http://www.mapllegroup.co.in/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Original Ordinary Jurisdiction

PERJURY PETITION No 2 of 2021

IN

SUIT NO.3367 OF 2007

RASHMIBHAI PATEL and Ors………………………………….. Plaintiffs

V/S

PAREKHSONS BUILDERS P Ltd & Ors …………………Defendents

I N D E X

Sr. No Particulars Page No.

1. Proforma I-III

2. Synopsys A

3. Perjury Petition 1-20

4 List of Documents EXHIBIT ‘A’

COPY OF ORDER 21-22

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT

ANIL BAJAJ I code (I19586)

758/2 NEEL KIRAN BUILDING

SV ROAD ,KHAR (W)

BOMBAY 400052

9411890781 internationalSocietyOfLawyers@gmail.com

I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Original Ordinary Jurisdiction

INTERIM APPLICATION No of 2020

IN

SUIT NO.3367 OF 2007

RASHMIBHAI PATEL and Ors………………………………….. Plaintiffs

V/S

PAREKHSONS BUILDERS P Ltd & Ors …………………Defendents

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram : Court’s or

Appearance, Courts Order or Directions and : Judge’s Orders

Prothonotary’s orders :

II

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram : Court’s or

Appearance, Courts Order or Directions and : Judge’s Orders

Prothonotary’s orders :

III

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram : Court’s or

Appearance, Courts Order or Directions and : Judge’s Orders

Prothonotary’s orders :

new with corrections

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORIGINAL ORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION No of 2020

IN

SUIT NO 3367/2007

RASHMIBHAI PATEL and Ors………………………………….. Plaintiffs

V/S

PAREKHSONS BUILDERS P Ltd & Ors …………………Defendents

SYNOPSYS

The plaintiff filed an affidavit of evidence. The advocate of the defendant objected that the averments are not found in the plaint. The order of the Hon’ble court stating the above is enclosed. This is incorrect. There are some new developments the defendant no 2 the director of the defendant no 1 company has closed the company and has formed a new company hence the plaint will have to be amended. The advocate of the defendant and the defendant no 2 has lied in his written statement and this is a case of perjury. The other defendants have not filed their written statement.

correct

LIST OF DATES

2007 The suit was filed

4th Feb 2020 The order was passed

March 18, 2020 Hence this application

POINTS TO BE ARGUED

This Hon’ble court may be pleased to direct the Registrar (Judicial ) to register a criminal complaint against the Defendant no 2 and his Advocate for offences under Section 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 209, and 120-B of the Indian Penal code.

This Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass an appropriate order and issue appropriate directions under Section 340 and Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

This Hon’ble court may be pleased to order and direct the defendant to furnish such security for his appearance before the appropriate Magistrate as it deems fit and proper.

ACTS TO BE RELIED UPON

1. THE INDIAN CONTRACTS ACT 1872.

2. CRIMINAL PROCEEDURE CODE

AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT

ANIL BAJAJ

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORIGINAL ORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION

PERJURY PETITION No 2 of 2021

IN

SUIT NO 3367/2007

In the matter of Section 340 and Section Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with Section 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 209, and 120-B of the Indian Penal code.

1. RASHMIBHAI Ambalal PATEL ) Plaintiffs

an adult of mumbai Indian Inhabitant )

Occupation Business residing at )

6C,Bharatiya Bhavan Society, 17th Road, )

Khar West, Mumbai 400052. )

2. Milan Manubhai Gosalia, )

an adult of mumbai Indian Inhabitant )

Occupation: Business residing at )

Tirupathi Apartments, )

Bhulabhai Desai Road )

Mumbai 400 006. )

3. Sri Ashok H Advani, )

an adult of mumbai Indian Inhabitant )

Occupation: Business residing at )

Building no 3D Siddhivinayak Society, )

Asha Nagar, Kandivili (East) )

Mumbai 400 101. )

Rs 200 stamps to be affixed on the back

V/s

1. PAREKHSONS BUILDERS P Ltd ) Defendants

A company registered under the )

Provisions of the companies Act 1956, )

And having its registered office at )

Parekh Plaza, Vallabh bhai road, )

VileParle ( west) Mumbai 400056 )

2. Atul Lalit Parekh, )

2.

Occupation: Business, having his )

Residential address at Parekh House, )

10th, Road, J.V.P.D. Scheme, )

VileParle ( west) Mumbai 400049. )

3. Shri ShivKumar Acyarya, )

Occupation: Business, having his )

Residential address at 302, Kunal Opp )

Madhu Park, Corner of 1st and 10th Road )

Khar (West) Mumbai – 400 052. )

4. Navkar Premises Co-operative )

Society Ltd, a society registered under )

the provisions of the Maharashtra )

Co-operative Societies Act, having its )

Address at Plot No: B – 18, Survey No )

542, CTS :592 Oshiwara New Link Road, )

Andheri (West) Mumbai – 400058. )

5. KMG Enterprises, )

a partnership firm having its )

address at 2. Homestead, 16 )

Dattatraya Road, Santacruz (West) )

Mumbai – 400 054 )

6. Bhupendra Nandial Gadia, )

an adult Indian Inhabitant of mumbai )

Occupation Business residing at )

Gopal Nivas, Lajpatrai Nivas, )

VileParle ( west) Mumbai 400056 )

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice

And

The Hon’ble Pusine Judges

Of this Hon’ble Court

not printed

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

3

APPLICATION U/S 195 of Cr.PC read with 340 of Cr.P.C with section 34,35,120B and 420 of the IPC for seeking sanction of this Hon’ble Court for trial / to prosecute the defendant, his counsel/advocate for deliberately, in collusion, knowingly, with common intention, committing grave crimes against the plaintiff and suppressing documents from this Hon’ble High court in present proceedings concerning right, title, interest in the properties of the Plaintiffs.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiff no 1 had good precedence with father of the defendant No 2 Lalit parekh where he invested and both had made some money hence he and his friend the plaintiff no 2 invested 70 lakhs in the defendant no 1 company and when told that the project is not coming up they were asked and they invested another 20 lakhs in the suit property. Similarly Plaintiff no 3 and defendant no 6 also invested in the suit property.

2. Sindhis were bankers till the banks were nationalized. Thereafter they continued the business in black money. Defendant no 3 Shiv Kumar a sindhi and his son were brokers would get gullible persons plaintiff no 3 also a sindhi from the rotary club and the like and lured the Rotarians to invest ( It should be remembered at that time bank loans against property were not available and registration of agreement for sale was not mandatory and investment in property was a win-win situation for both investors and builders) Broker Defendant no 3 Shiv Kumar would get Rotarians from the rotary club he lured the plaintiff no 3 to invest and Defendant no 2 Atul Parekh would promise them good returns Defendant no 2 Atul Parekh is a cheat as seen from below.

3. The defendants borrow more money from Janata Sahakari Pune bank and Appeal no 15 of 2004 was filed in the Mumbai Debt Recovery tribunal -1 under sec 17 of the Securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets act 2002 .

The Zuba corp report :-

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th 159, 160, 161 06-0 9- Case court, Esplanade, Mumbai under Sec 159,160,161,220(1),220(2)

A Pune shaker Bank has already done as the case against him as per the original papers got by RTI.

He also owes Andhra bank 4,50,00,000(4 Crore and Fifty Lakhs only) and union Bank of India 5,00,00,000(Five crores only)

pg 4

Defendant no 2 Atul Parekh, Defendant no 3 Shiv Kumar Acharaya and Late Suresh Shah issued allotment letter which reads “we have alloted” and “agreement will be signed in due course” it is an all-cash deal with plaintiff no 1 and 2 who made a payment of 45 lakhs each i.e. 90 lakh and Defendant no 2 Atul Parekh, Defendant no 3 Shiv Kumar and Suresh shah issued allotment letters and 50% cash and 50% cheque deal with plaintiff no 3 as it was done in the rotary club proof of this the affidavit of fellow Rotarian obtained recently after filing of plaint. Defendant no 2 Atul Parekh issued receipts for Rs 34 lakhs. The defendants borrow more money from Pune shaker bank but use it to probably buy out or cheat Suresh shah who dies but they do not start the construction work. They cheat the Defendant no 6 Bupendre gadia the 4th investors who were unable to pay his contribution of the advocate and court fees over Rs 3.0 lakhs hence he could not become plaintiff no 4.

4. When talks begin with KMG to do a joint venture the defendant no 2 again cheats the plaintiffs and tell them that the project is cancelled and takes back the allotment letters and refunds the investment thro cheques totalling to 1.08 crores. The defendant no 3 cheats by not giving the promised cheques of Rs 86 lakhs his ⅓ share in the project 20% more than the amount invested by the plaintiffs.

5. Later on seeing the public Notice the plaintiffs raise a hue and cry and send a claim which is replied. The advocates of KMG use smart language in the supplementary agreement which promises area to the plaintiffs and Bhupendra gadia by the defendants who were told that they should not encase the cheques now, and that they will be given the area in the new joint venture as written in the agreement.

6. After a lot of negotiations where in money was promised but not paid a lot of complaints were made to the police and a lot of letters to the Home ministry and CM who control the inactions of the police the suit was filed.

7. Recently the advocate who took over went to meet the defendants no 3 and 6 to verify the other side of the facts of the case the defendant No 3 agreed to and set up meeting with defendant no 2 who agreed to refund the amount. The advocate was shocked to see the name board “Maple infrastructure”. On doing some research it is apparent that there are more similar victims of fraud by the defendant No 2 hence they have decided to close the defendant no 1 company Parekhson and have started a new company Maple infrastructure.

Pg 5.

8. IMPORTANT POINTS

1 Allotment letter language and why it was given if no payment was received.

Original Cheques why they were given if the allotment was not cancelled.

Cheating by the defendant to sell the same property to two persons 1. plaintiffs ( till the payment is refunded and discharge obtained the deal is not cancelled. The plaintiffs’ claim was even acknowledged in the supplementary agreement ) Finally the language in the supplementary agreement is clear that the defendant no 2 and 3 from their share will give the area to the plaintiffs and defendant no 6 hence they were asked to hold on to the cheques and not present them for payment.

9. (this line not printed ORDER : The statement made by the Advocate of the defendant is refected in the order )

The order reads as follows

“from paragraphs 4 to 21, are totally beyond the pleadings of (the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that for the averments in paragraphs 26 to 32, which refer to the alleged negotiations between the parties for settlement of the dispute, also there is no foundation in the pleadings.

Here below is the para wise evidence which confirms the above story both from the plaint and from the affidavit of evidence of the plaintiff and written statement of the defendant himself.

TABLE

Para no ! Topic ! Affidavit of Evidence ! Plaint ! Written statement ! Ammendment to plaint

4 Precedence Why would someone give such a large amount in cash - - yes

5 Defendant No 1 strike off Parekhson builders pvt ltd company closed - ((this line not printed PAGE 4 - PARA 5D) yes

6 Criminal cases Atul parekh - yes

7 MCA defendant no 1 Strike off yes

8 New firm Maple infrastructure yes

Pg 6

9 Cheating case filed Vijay Mallya yes

10 Lalit Parekhs death Met other plaintiffs and def no 6 yes

11 Def No 3 broker shivkumar launched Brochure in Rotary club yes

12 Paid 34 lakhs receipts from Def no 2 (this line not printed pg 5 para 7 Exhibit E pg 5 para 5 F

13 Hundi yes

14 DEF 6 Bhupendra N Gadhia pg 5 para 7 E

15 Allotment letter pg 5 para 6 Exhibit B C D (this line not printed Pg 4, Para 5e

16 Suresh shah Allotment letter pg 5 para 6 Exhibit C (this line not printed Pg 6 Para 9

17 Shivkumar Atul Allotment letter pg 5 para 6 Exhibit B (this line not printed Pg 6 Para 12, Pg 9 Para 17

18 Atul Parekh Allotment letter pg 5 para 6 Exhibit D (this line not printed Pg 6 Para 12, Pg 9 Para 17

19 Atul replaces Suresh shah Allotment letter pg 5 para 8 (this line not printed Pg 6 Para 9, Pg 9 Para 17

20 Allotment letter Agreement for sale will be sent Pg 6 Para 9, Pg 9 Para 17

21 Def no 6 Bupendra Gadia page 7,8 pg para 10 page 12 para 17 (this line not printed Pg 3 para 3

Pg 7

22 cheques 1.08 Cr and 86K to be given page 6 & 7 para 10 (this line not printed Pg 9 Para 17

23 KMG Public notice Defendants cheat and enter into a Joint venture with KMG page 7 para 11 Exhibit F (this line not printed Pg no 10 Para 18

24 Claims Plaintiffs claimpage 7 para 11 Exhibit G & H (this line not printed Pg no 12 Para 23

25 Replies of kmg KMG' advocate ack page 8 para 12 Exhibit J (this line not printed Pg 4, Para 5e

26 Supplementary agreement Were told not to present the cheques as they were promised the area page 9 para 16 page 10 para 17 Exhibit N (this line not printed Pg 12 para 23

27 Loan Sahkari Bank in Pune. part of Exhibit N (this line not printed Pg 12 para 23

28 meeting and denial MOU page 11& 12 para 17 (this line not printed Pg no 12 Para 24

29 Police Plaintiff made a complaint page 11 para 16 Exhibit P (this line not printed Pg 12 Para 23

no no Chief minister Plaintiff's letter page 9 para 14 Exhibit K (this line not printed Pg no 11 Para 21

30 Recovery agent advertisement page 12 para 17 (this line not printed Pg no 12 Para 24

31 Witness meeting Atmaram’ affidavit (this line not printed Pg no 12 Para 24 yes

32 Def no 3 Meeting with def 2 YES

Pg 8

33 Claim Claim in the Plaint Exhibit Q (this line not printed pg 11 para 17, Pg 16 Para 31

(these pages not printed

PARA 4 - PRECEDENCE

Relationship between the plaintiff and defendant

I say that mr. Rashmibhai Ambalal Patel has purchased one flat from the Defendant No. 2 Mr Atul Lalitabhai Parekh and him father Lalitabhai parekh and the deal was completed to my entire satisfaction, hence when approached again Mr Rashmibhai Ambalal Patel and Mr Milan Manubhai Gosalia invested rs 70 lakhs and booked 2600sft at rs 6521 per sft in Vijay Mansion, situated at 10th road jvpd scheme juhu Mumbai. During that time most of the transactions were done in cash using black money. The hand written note by Lalitabhai parekh is attached is as “Exhibit A” Explaining why Demonitisaton and RERA where enacted by Prime minister Modi. At that time all deals were done with black money and builders took their own sweet time to give possession. Lalit Parekh fatter of defendant no 2 was a good man and kept up his word and the plaintiff no 1 had successful deal with Lalit parekh prompting the plaintiff no 1 and his friends plaintiff no 2 and defendant no 6 to invest again in the suit property.

PARA 5 - DEFENDANT NO. 1 STRIKE OFF

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 4 Para 5d by saying on oath that “As regards Defendant No. 1 is concerned, it was not a member of the society and in view thereof, it purportedly offering anything to Plaintiff Nos. 1 or 2 or Defendant No. 6 or to anybody else does not arise at all”

Bloomberg Is and new recent development

The contents of para no 5 are clear that the defendant no 1 company is closed by the director the defendant no 2 The same are also reflected in the MCA web site in para no And the defendant no 2 has started his business in the new name Maple infrastructure

Which is reflected in para no 8

PAPA 6 - CRIMINAL CASES

The content of para 6 show that

There are 2 cheating cased against the defendant no 2

And he has take loans from 2 banks to the tune of 4.5 and 5 crore

PARA 7 - MCA STRIKE OFF

PARA 8 - NEW FIRM

PARA 9 - CHEATING CASE FILED

PARA 10 - LALIT PAREKH’S

Death All these are new development happened after the plaint was filed in 2007

PARA 11 - DEFENDANT NO. 3 BROKER

PARA 12 - 34 lakhs

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 5 para 5 f says “ With reference to the alleged payment of Rs 17 lakhs it was mentioned that the same was not connected with the dealing of any property what so ever and further the transaction against the said payment was squared up“ At pg 8 para 13, “With reference to paragraph 7 of the plaint, these defendants deny that plaintiff No. 3 has made payment of Rs. 34,00,000/- or any other amount to Defendant Nos. 2 or 3 purportedly for allotment of commercial premises admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. or any other area to Plaintiff No. 3 as alleged. These Defendants crave leave to refer to the alleged/purported receipts alleged /purported date 12th May 1995 for its true meaning, interpretation and legal effect thereof. These defendants submit that Defendant No. 2 has not received the sum of Rs. 34,00,000/- or any part thereof and therefore the question of Plaintiffs filing the above suit against him by making alleged/purported claim on the basis of said alleged/purported payment does not arise at all. It is very clear from the alleged/purported receipt that the same was not in lieu of the alleged/purported premises being given to the plaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 in the building to be constructed on the property as alleged. These defendants say and as aforesaid Defendant No. 1 was not the member of Defendant No. 4 at the relevant time and therefore the question of accepting any payment against any premises in the building does not arise at all. Without prejudice to the above, as aforesaid, the said purported payment was with regard to some other transaction which was already squared up. If this was so then the def no 2 should give details of the transaction to the tune of 34 lakhs. But one thing is good that he has agreed that he has received the 34 lakhs for which there is a receipt issued by def no 1 Parekhson builders and from the below para it will be clear that Defendant No. 3 is also involved in this transaction and he should be sent a notice from the court to file his written statement. The defendant no 2 in his written statement at Page no 2 Para 2 by saying that “These Defendants submit that the plaintiffs neither fixed any appointment for inspection nor even cared to reply to any of the aforesaid letters.” This could be a lapse on the part of the earlier advocate of the plaintiff I say that because we were family friends ………… As he (defendant No 3) was insisting that I pay 50% in cash hence I paid 17 lac. The receipt dated 1st May 1995 for Rs.17,00,000/- is attached as EXHIBIT “H”. Then he took me to the office of Mr. Atul parekh of M/s Parekhsons Builders Pvt. Ltd and he made me pay the another Rs.17,00,000/ The 2nd receipt also dated 1st May 1995 for Rs.17,00,000/- is attached as EXHIBIT “I”. I say that the total amount I have paid is Rs 34 lacs. He told me he will give the allotment letter after realizing the cheque, but this never happened. The written statement of the Plaintiff no 3 will confirm the above fact or both will be jailed for perjury.

Para 13 HUNDI

Para 14. BHUPENDRA GADIA

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 5 Para 7 by saying that “there is any alleged/purported contract entered into by and between the plaintiffs or any of them or Defendant No. 6 as absolutely, malafidely and dishonestly alleged” where as the fact is as per para 14 of the affidavit “ BHUPENDRA N GADHIA: Our friend Bhupendra N Gadhia the defendant no 6 agreed to join us and together we booked 7000 sqft and paid a further sum of ₹ 70 Lakhs making our total investment to ₹ 160 Lakhs. (90+7). The total after adding 34 lakhs of the plaintiff no 3 is 1.96 crores.

PARA 15 ALLOTMENT LETTER (See below)

PARA 16. ALLOTMENT LETTER of SURESH SHAH

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 6 Para 9 by saying that “These defendants are not aware and and do not admit that defendant No. 3 or one Late Mr. Suresh J. Shah (for short “Suresh”), had represented anything to the plaintiffs or to any of them or to Defendant No. 6 as alleged and put the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 6 to strict proof thereof.” The affidavit reads Para 16. I say that the Defendant no 2 Mr. Atul parekh gave an allotment letter dated 19/01/1997 for 1250 sq ft from his partner Late Mr Suresh Shah to Rashmi bhai and other the same is attached as EXHIBIT “M”. the allotment letter signed by suresh is the proof of the lies of the Defendant no 2.

PARA 17. ALLOTMENT LETTER - SHIVKUMAR ACHARYA

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 6 Para 12 by saying that “With reference to paragraph 6 of the plaint, these defendants deny that defendant No. 2 negotiated anything with the Plaintiffs or any of them or Defendant No. 6 as alleged and therefore the question of Defendant No. 2 purportedly agreeing to allot 1250 sq.ft. (super built up) or any other area in the building to be constructed on the property does not arise at all. These defendants are not aware and do not admit that Defendant No. 3 or Suresh or any of them negotiated with the plaintiffs or any of them or Defendant No. 6 as alleged and put the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 6 to the strict proof thereof. These defendants deny that defendant no. 2 negotiated anything with plaintiff no. 3 as alleged and therefore the question of Defendant no. 2 purportedly agreeing to allot to Plaintiff no. 3 2000 sq. ft. (super built up) or any sq. ft. in the building does not arise at all. In any event these defendants deny that Defendant No. 2 purportedly agreed to allot Plaintiff No. 3 2000 sq. ft. (super built up) sq. ft. as alleged. These defendants are not aware and do not admit that Defendant No. 3 or Suresh negotiated anything with Plaintiff No. 3 as alleged and put the plaintiff No. 3 to strict proof thereof. These defendants state that as neither Defendant No. 2 nor Defendant No. 3 or Suresh negotiated anything with the Plaintiffs or any of them or Defendant No. 6, the question of they purportedly agreeing to sell 5000 sq. ft. (super built up) or any part thereof or 2000 sq. ft. (super built up) or any part thereof at Rs. 3,411/- per sq. ft. or at any other rate does not arise at all. In any event these defendants deny that Defendant Nos. 2 or 3 or Suresh purportedly agreed to sell at Rs. 3,411/- per sq.ft. or any other rate as alleged. These Defendants submit that there is no alleged/purported letter date 17th January 1997 allegedly/purportedly signed by Defendant No. 2 as alleged. These defendants call upon the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 6 to produce the alleged/purported original of the said alleged/purported letter dated 17th January 1997. These defendants deny that alleged/purported letter dated 17th January 1997 is purportedly an allotment letter as alleged. These Defendants also crave leave to refer to the other two letters, both allegedly/purportedly dated 17th January 1997 purportedly addressed by Defendant No. 3 and Suresh to Defendant No. 1,2 and 6 for its true meaning, interpretation and legal effect thereof, when produced. These defendants submit that in paragraph under reply it is alleged that the Plaintiffs are purportedly annexing the letters both allegedly/purportedly dated 17th January 1997, however, under the guise of annexing the said alleged/purported letters, the Plaintiffs actually annexed two letters both allegedly/purportedly dated 19th January 1997. Admittedly, neither the alleged/purported letters allegedly/purportedly dated 17th January 1997 nor 19th January 1997 are produced for inspection. These Defendants deny that they or any of them have agreed to sell any area in the building to plaintiff Nos. 1 or 2 or 3 or Defendant No. 6 as alleged. It is pertinent and material to note that inspite of repeated requests and demands, the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 6 have failed and neglected to produce for inspection the alleged/purported originals of the aforesaid letters. These Defendants therefore submit that neither any of the Plaintiffs nor Defendant No . 6 are not entitled to rely upon any of the aforesaid letters.”

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 8 Para 14 by saying that “With reference to paragraph 8 of the plaint, these defendants deny that the share of Suresh was taken over by Defendant No. 2 as alleged.”

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 9 Para 17 by saying that “These Defendants deny that any of the purported letters are allotment letters as alleged. In any event and without prejudice to the above, these Defendants crave leave to refer to the purported letters referred to by the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 6 for its true meaning, interpretation and legal effect thereof. The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 3 Para 5a by saying that “By his letter dated 7th January 1997, Defendant No. 2, subject to payment being made, offered to Plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and Defendant No. 6 to sell certain premises in a building then to be known as “Parekh Heights” (for short ‘the building’) and then to be constructed on all that piece or parcel of land bearing C.T.S No. 592, Plot No. B18, situated at New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400053 (for short ‘the property’) belonging to Navkar Premises Co-op Soc. Ltd. (for short ‘the society’)”

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 4 Para 5b by saying that “However the said offer was withdrawn due to non payment by the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendant No. 6.”

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 4 Para 5c by saying that “In view of the above, the Plaintiff Nos. 1 or 2 or Defendant No. 6 have no alleged/purported claim at all upon the premises or any part thereof or against Defendant No. 2”

At one place they said that we have not given them inspection, at the other place they say that these are not allotment letters “These Defendants also crave leave to refer to the other two letters, both allegedly/purportedly dated 17th January 1997 purportedly addressed by Defendant No. 3 and Suresh to Defendant No. 1, 2 and 6 for its true meaning, interpretation and legal effect thereof, when produced.“ Both these statements contradict each other. The language of the allotment letter reads “I have agreed to allot you in the above site various units of aggregated area of 1250 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs. 3,411/- per sq. ft. The formal agreement for sale for the same will be sent to you in due course.”

PARA 18 Allotment letter - Atul Parekh See above

PARA 19 Allotment letter- Atul replaces Suresh shah

Why would there be a 4th allotment letter from Atul Parekh.

PARA 20 - Allotment Letter language “Agreement for sale will be sent to you in due course.”

PARA 21 - Defendant No. 6 - Bhupendra Gadia See above para 14

PARA 22 - CHEQUES

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 9 Para 17 (2nd half) by saying that “These defendants deny that any amounts were received against the purported sale of premises in the building as alleged. With further reference to the paragraph under reply and with reference to various post dated cheques referred to therein are concerned in or around 2002, these defendants had given certain cheques, to plaintiffs and Defendant No. 6 pending negotiations and finalization of a totally independent and unrelated transaction. However, as his transaction did not fructify and cheques were to be returned to us. However, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 6 deposited these cheques illegally and is now trying to dishonestly and fraudulently to apply these cheques to support their false claim of allotment of premises. “

The real facts are brought our in our affidavit at para 22. CHEQUES As the construction work was not started Defendant no 2 Mr. Atul parekh and Defendant no 3 Shri ShivKumar Acharya informed us that the project was aborted and convinced us that we should take our money back. Not suspecting foul play, we handed over the original allotment letters. Fortunately, we have kept copies of the same. Rashmibhai & Milanbhai were given cheques with 20% additional money than their original investment in exchange of their original allotment letters which were taken back by Atul Parekh. He gave us including Mr. Bhupendra N Gadhia Cheques to the tune of ₹ 108 Lakhs Defendant no 2 Mr. Atul parekh said that he was 65% partner and he gave 65% of 90 lacs ie 58.5 lakhs + 20% more than what we had paid ie 68 lacs. We were promised area and were asked to hold on to the cheques and not encash them (as seen in PARA 26 - Supplementary Agreement).

PARA 23 - KMG PUBLIC NOTICE Affidavit: On seeing the Notice, we sent our claims to the solicitors for M/s KMG, Mahimtura & Co and the same are attached as EXHIBIT “AD, AE, AF & AG”.

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 10 Para 18 by saying that “It is true that M/s Mahimtura & Co (Suburban) invited objections in respect of the property as their clients have entered into development agreement with the Defendant No. 4. These defendants say that as nothing was agreed to be sold to PLaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 or any of them, the question of their lodging their alleged/purported objections/claim with the said M/s Mahimtura & Co (Suburban) does not arise at all. These Defendants deny that the plaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 or any of them have got any alleged /purported claim in the property or any part thereof. These Defendants deny that the plaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 or any of them have approached Defendants Nos. 2 or 3 or Suresh as alleged or Defendants Nos. 2 or 3 or Suresh allegedly/purportedly promised to allot the premises to the Plaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 or to any of them alleged. These Defendants deny that the Defendant Nos. 2 or 3 or Suresh have agreed to allot any premises to the plaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 or any of them alleged. These defendants deny that any agreement was to be executed as alleged and therefore the question of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have failed or neglected to do so does not arise at all. With reference to the purported lodging of claim, these Defendants, crave leave to refer to their letters dated 8th May 2004 and an undated letter referred to above.

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 4 Para 5e by saying that “In reply to the letter dated 6th April 2004, addressed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No. 6 to M/s Mahimtura & Co (Suburban) which said letter was addressed by them in response to the public notice published by said M/s Mahimtura & Co (Suburban), calling for the claims from general members of public before acquiring development rights from the society. It was further put on record that by his said letter dated 17th December 1994, subject to Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendant No. 6 making payment as mentioned therein, offered certain premises, however, the said offer was withdrawn due to non payment of Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendant No. 6. By the said letter Defendant No. 2 called upon the plaintiff No. 1, 2 and Defendant No. 6 to given the inspection of purported original of the allotment letter and proof of alleged/purported payment claimed by them.”

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 4 Para 5e by saying that “These Defendants say that the said letter was rightly not replied to as the plaintiff No. 3 was not at all concerned with the transaction which took place between the Defendant No. 4 and the said M/s KMG Enterprises.”

PARA 24 - CLAIMS

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 12 Para 23 by saying that “These defendants crave leave to refer to the agreement referred to in the paragraph under reply for its true meaning, interpretation and legal effect thereof. These Defendants deny that Defendant No. 1 or 2 have agreed to settle the purported claim of 3rd parties, which includes, the plaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 as alleged. These Defendants emphatically deny that the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs. 1,94,00,000/-

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 16 Para 31 by saying that “These defendants deny that the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 7,99,95,000/- or any other amount as alleged.

In fact this is a claim as on 2007 till the date of payment will be much more as the Hon’ble supreme court in Motor accident claims award compensation toward mental agony and with venture capitalist making 40% or more property prices rising the life saving investment should give good returns further there should be some deterrent to these criminals

PARA 25 - REPLIES OF KMG

Mahimtura & Co replied to our letters informing us that they will forward our letter to M/s KMG. and the same are attached as EXHIBIT “AH & AI”

PARA 26 - SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT

On many occasions Shivkumar Acharya ….. M/s KMG in a criminal conspiracy entered into a supplementary agreement a certified copy of which we have obtained from the Sub Registrar’ office. The agreements are attached as EXHIBIT “AJ, AK, AL & AM”. Why should a new agreement be made and third-party names ours Mr Rashmikant A Patel, Mr Milan M Gosalia and Mr Bhupendra N Gadhia and Mr. Ashok H. Advani be added if they are not an interested party. Para 8 on page 8 of the supplementary agreement says “The Parekh group shall not sell, lease, exchange, gift, create mortgage, charge or otherwise encumber or transfer . . . . the aggregate area of 7000 sqft. claimed by the said Mr Rashmikant A Patel, Mr Milan M Gosalia and Mr Bhupendra N Gadhia and Mr. Ashok H. Advani. From this it is very clear that we were promised area and told to hold on to the original cheques (Refer to at our PARA 22) which have now deposited in the court. The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Pg 12 para 23 by saying that “these defendants crave leave to refer to the agreement and the supplemental agreement referred to in the paragraph under reply for its true meaning, interpretation & legal effect thereof. These defendants deny that Defendant No. 1 or 2 have agreed to settle the purported claim of 3rd parties, which includes, the Plaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 as alleged. These Defendants deny that from the area coming to the share of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 they will have to settle the purported claim of the Plaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 as alleged. With further reference to paragraph under reply the plaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 are not entitled to copy of the said agreements and therefore the question of their following up to get the copy does not arise at all. These Defendants deny that the Advocates for the Plaintiffs or Defendant No. 6 by their letter dated 25th January 2007, recorded facts as alleged. These Defendants deny any fraud or breach of trusts.

It will be clear that Defendant No. 4, 5 and 6 are also involved in this transaction and they should be sent a notice from the court to file his written statement which will clarify the facts of the supplementary agreement.

PARA 27 - LOAN

BANK RECOVERY OF LOAN I say that along with the papers of KMG we also came to know that Mr Atul Parekh the defendant no 2 had mortgaged Navkar premises property with Janta Sahkari Bank in Pune. The bank started court proceedings against Parekh’s Navkar premises to recover their loan. We came to know about the same we got thro RTI and the same is attached as Exhibit “AN”

PARA 28 - MEETING AND DENIAL

We along with Acharya met with Atul Parekh at many places including Khar Gymkhana, Atul’s office, Atul’s home, Shivkumar’s old & new office etc. In these meetings we were working out for an out-of-court settlement. Also see Para 31 below.

PARA 29 - POLICE AND CHIEF MINISTER

POLICE: I say that we have written letters to the police, police commissioner, the Home Minister, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Hand written letters to commissioner of Police by Mr Milan and Mr Rashmikant and the same is attached as EXHIBIT “AS to AZ & AAA to AAC”.

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 11 Para 21 by saying that “These Defendants fail to understand addressing of letter by plaintiffs to Dy. Chief Minister, the then Home Minister and the Government of Maharashtra.

PARA 30 - RECOVERY AGENT

We approached Mr. Amol Kale who arranged a meeting in the office of Advocate Prakash & Company we all along with our solicitor Adv Mrs. Praganya Trivedi partner Bharat & Co, Jaysukh Mashru – Director (Non- Executive, Independent) – Maple Infraprojects were taken by Atul Parekh to Prakash & Co. office for settlement. where it was agreeing to pay One and a Half times of their original investment. Adv of the Defendant no 2 Mr. Prakash Shah’s brother Mr. Umesh Shah and his partner Bharath bhai Mehta brokers were known to me and they had done the deal of Vijay Mansion where we paid Rs 70 Lakhs to the Defendant no 2. were also present Mr. Prakash Shah insisted that we accept this fair and reasonable offer. A respectable person Mr. Atmaram Punjabi, our Advocate Mrs. Adv Mrs. Praganya Trivedi partner Bharat & Co, and Jaysukh Mashru – Director (Non-Executive, Independent) – Maple Infraprojects was also present in this meeting during which the repayment terms were finalized. The affidavit of Mr Atmaram who was a witness to the meeting was also attached as EXHIBIT “AAK”.

PARA 31 - WITNESS MEETING

Plaint Page X para 16

“The defendant No 2 attended the residence of Plaintiff no 1 for the settlement”

The reference of this meeting is at page 11 para 17 of the plaint held along with the old advocate of the plaintiff Bharat and company and the advocate of the defendant no 2 prakash shah where the defendant agreed to give 1 an half times the sum received.

The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at Page no 12 Para 24 by saying that “These Defendants deny that in the end of May 2007 or at any point of time Defendant No. 2 attended the residence of Plaintiff No. 1 as alleged and therefore the question of he has purported gone to settle or request Plaintiff No. 1 not to proceed in a Court of Law as alleged does not arise at all. (See para 28 above)

PARA 32 - DEFENDANT NO. 3

Even recently during 2019 Mr. Shivkumar Acharya the Defendant no 3 and his son took us to Atul parekh’s office to try to get us the money back and the and the affidavit of our Advocate Anil Bajaj is attached as EXHIBIT “AAL”

PARA 33 - CLAIM

CLAIM OF 7.99 CR: We say that in view of what is stated above our claim of 7.99 Cr is justified is attached as EXHIBIT “AAM”.

See Para 24 above.

12. GROUNDS

The intention of the Defendant and his advocate seems to be to be to confuse and mislead the court THOUGH he knows fully well that he has taken the money and issued the allotment letters. later taken back the allotment letters saying that the project will not come and refunded the money by cheques . this lie of the defendant was exposed in the public notice taken out by the defendant no 5 had taken over the joint development under duress at a much lower rate 2800 compared to the 3411 mentioned in the allotment letter and he conspired with the defenant and made a suplimetary agreement signed by all members of the society the defendant no 4 saying that the defendant no 2 and 3 will give the area from their share hence the plaintiff were asked not to present the cheques and they have been deposited in the courts. The advocates of the defenant have lied before the court and taken a order in their favour. The intention of the defenant is to be totally dishonest and mislead the court by making false statement on oath and hiding these fact from the Hon’ble court. The Written statement of the defendant clearly proves the above facts. The averments are false and to the knowledge of the defendant no 2 and intentionally done to defer and delay the matters and issues between the parties.

As the Defendant has made false statements in the written statement filed before this Hon’ble court, the plaintiff seeks a refferal to the competent Judicial Magistrate for prosecution of the defendant no 2.

FALSE STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT

The statements and averments made by the defendant no 2 on oath are manifestly false as shown below

FACT AND DOCUMENTS HIDDEN FROM THIS HON’BLE COURT

The Allotment letters issued by the defendants have been hidden from this Hon’ble court.

The fact the Original cheques were issued have been hidden from this Hon’ble court.

It is therfore clear that the defendant no 2 has made false statement to this Hon’ble Court.

And has hidden the facts from this hon’ble court.

In view of the admitted postion, it is apperant that the defendant by the intentional delebeate false statement has committed offences under section

With a view and has obtained a favourable order

The petitioner has paid a court fees of Rs 200 on this petition

The petitide is in time

ThTh Hon’ble court hAY juridisction over the matter

Advanitria to sign

Verificaton

Move to end

DELAY

delay in trial affects faith in law SC

The SC ruled that a stay on proceedings must not exceed six months

Delay in a criminal trial has a deleterious effect on the administration of justice, the court said

It said prolonged trials can result in witnesses turning hostile or even dying and evidence being diluted

NEW DELHI: In a bid to ensure speedy justice and discourage delaying tactics adopted by accused in procuring a lengthy stay on trial, particularly in corruption and criminal cases, the Supreme Court

The maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” becoming the norm and aiding the accused in avoiding just desserts in a court of law. Prolonged trials can result in witnesses turning hostile or even dying and evidence being diluted — developments that frustrate victims and law enforcement agencies.

A bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel, R F Nariman and Navin Sinha said it was in the interest of society to ensure that cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act are tried expeditiously as the cancer of corruption has eaten into vital organs of the state.

Delay in trial affects the faith in rule of law and efficacy of the legal system. It affects social welfare and development. Even in civil or tax cases, it has been laid down

It said the wisdom of legislature and the object of final and expeditious disposal

the matter remains pending for a long time which defeats the interest of justice,” it said.

Be it noted, in the said case, the following passage from Swaran Singh V. State of Punjab3, was reproduced.

“It has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and gives up. … In adjourning the matter without any valid cause a court unwittingly becomes party to miscarriage of justice.”

this is true in salman khan American bakery case.

Shahara paid from inside the jail

Mallaya also regrets that he did not follow the Indian legal system

Gurnaib Singh V. State of Punjab.(2013) 7 SCC 108

The cross-examination of the witnesses was deferred without recording any special reason and dates were given after a long gap. The mandate of the law and the views expressed by this Court from time to time appears to have been totally kept at bay. The learned trial Judge, as is perceptible, seems to have ostracised from his memory that a criminal a trial has its own gravity and sanctity. In this regard, we may refer with profit to the pronouncement in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar2 wherein it has been stated that an accused person by his conduct cannot put a fair trial into jeopardy, for it is the primary and paramount duty of the criminal courts to ensure that the risk to fair trial is removed and trials are allowed to proceed smoothly without any interruption or obstruction.”

State of U.P. V. Shambu Nath Singh 4, We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in court he must be examined on that day. The court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the court only at a heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly, they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of Bhatta (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a sad plight in the trial courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at the doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practise must be reformed by the presiding officers of the trial courts and it can be reformed by everyone provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty.”

SENIOR COUNSEL

13. An advocate is an officer of the court and can be disbarred

SC Judgement R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar General Of The High ... on 28 January, 2019

Recent jusgement of the Hon'ble suprement court

Recently even the proceedings were taken out against the advocate who Is supposed to be an officer of the Court. In Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd V/s Jitenderpal Singh Chadha.

In EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.765 OF 2015 Prithipal S Chadha Vs. Jitenderpal Singh Chadha Bombay High Court Year : 2017 G.S. PATEL, J 12th February 2018

“2. There is some something very rotten in the state of our commercial litigation. It is exemplified by this case. If ever there was an example of commercial fraud and a fraud on the Court, this is it.

Chamber Summons No.993 of 2017 Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd, (“Fullerton”). seeks attach Flat No. C-12, Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Park, Pali Hill Road, Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052. creditor of Jitenderpal Singh Chadha (“Jitenderpal”) mortgaged 9.80 crores 2014 co-borrower as security already mortgaged to IndiaBulls Housing Finance Limited on 26th March 2013. 4,06,02,793/- was paid to IndiaBulls facility agreement Deed of Reconveyance

Deed of Simple Mortgage Sub- Registrar of Assurances, Andheri. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 for an order of forcible possession.

Jitenderpal, Arbitral Award Court Receiver was appointed and The CMM was told that the flat was thus in custodia legis with this Court, and therefore no order of possession ought to be passed. But the truth is that Jitenderpal’s father-in-law. had the court receiver appointed As if that is not convenient enough, The Arbitrator was, to my very great dismay, an Advocate of this Court, against whom I propose to issue notice quite separately for his role in what followed. The award is so astonishing and so utterly remarkable in what it set out to do, and actually did, as an entirely pre-planned exercise to perpetrate a fraud on the Court, that I can do better than quote the first two paragraphs of it.

“1. One Mr Prithipal Surindershingh Chadha, adult, Indian habitant, aged 60 years, residing at Pratap Kutir, 16th Cross Road, Khar, Mumbai 400 052 (hereinafter referred as ‘Claimant’ for sake of brevity), by his letters dated 4th November 2014 had forwarded me a copy of the agreement dated 4th November 2014 entered into between him on one hand and Mr Jitenderpal Singh Chadha, Indian habitants, (aged about 35 years), staying at C/12, Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Park, Pali Hill Road, Mumbai 400 052 (hereinafter referred as ‘Respondent’ for sake of brevity) on the other hand with specific request that the said letters forwarded by them to me may be treated as a reference. A careful perusal of the said agreement shows that the parties to the said agreement have made specific arrangements for referring the matter to Arbitration as per The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. I am satisfied that under the said agreement, I am entitled to entertain the said reference in respect of the dispute between Mr Prithipal Surendersingh Chadha on one hand and Mr Jitenderpal Singh Chadha, on other hand as all the parties have accepted and appointed me as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute and accordingly I proceed to entertain the said References.

2. As could have been seen from the Reference made by Claimant, it is his contention that he had advanced an amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, Rs.60,00,000/-, Rs.35,00,000/- and Rs.55,00,000/- aggregating to Rs2,80,00,000/- (Rs. Two crores eighty lakhs only). The Claimant handed over a cheque for Rs.1,30,00,000/- and made RTGS for Rs.60,00,000/- on or about 27th September 2012. Further, the Claimant handed over cheques along with RTGS form for Rs.35,00,000/- and Rs.55,00,000/- for making RTGS in favour of the Respondent on or about 3rd November 2014. All the above payments were made by the Claimant to the Respondent as advance/in anticipation of delivery/sale of flat no. C/12, Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Park, Pali Hill Road, Mumbai 400 052 (hereinafter it may be referred as ‘Said Flat’ for sake of brevity) being to the Respondent for total consideration amount Rs.9.80 crores.”

7. What this tells us is: (i) this so-called claim of specific performance by Prithipal against his son-in-law Jitenderpal was supposedly an oral agreement for sale of the flat, and it is of this that specific performance was sought before the arbitrator; (ii) The Arbitrator, Advocate Parab, was persuaded to act on the basis of a letter of 4th November 2014, which apparently references the oral agreement also conveniently said to be dated 4th November 2014; (iii) It is alleged that some payment was made on 27th September 2012 but the most recent payment was the day before the so-called agreement, viz., on on 3rd November 2014; (iv) The total consideration was, and this cannot be a coincidence, an amount of Rs 9.80 Crores, roughly the amount of Fullerton’s loan to begin with.

8. It does not end at that. The Award was made on 6th November 2014, i.e. precisely two days later; two days after the so- called agreement of 4th November 2014. It appears that this award was rendered on stamp paper of 29th September 2014 obtained by Advocate Parab. The operative portion of the award says that Jitenderpal was to pay an amount of Rs.3,94,48,954/- to his father- in-law with interest at 24% compounded monthly (itself utterly extraordinary), and, in default, the very flat in question was to be transferred to the name of the Jitenderpal’s father-in-law —without payment of the balance consideration. Then clause (c) made a wholly untenable direction of attachment and sale of the flat and clause (d) created a charge over it in favour of the Prithipal, the Claimant, while clause (e) granted the decree for specific performance and clause (f ) granted a restraint.

9. This duo of father-in-law and son-in-law then come together to this Court, when Prithipal filed Execution Application No.765 of 2015 and also filed a Chamber Summons in that Execution Application, Chamber Summons No.1468 of 2015. Prithipal moved this Chamber Summons before KR Shriram J on 27th April 2016 inter alia seeking the appointment of the Receiver in Execution. Father-in-law and son-in -law were careful to arrange separate legal representation. Jitenderpal, the son-in-law, through his counsel blithely and promptly told the Court that he was in financial difficulty, that the flat had already been attached and therefore persuaded the Court to grant the reliefs in the Chamber Summons. This was allowed. This is prayer clause (a) of the Chamber Summons: “(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai as Receiver of the property viz. Flat No.C/12, Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Park, Pali Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 052 and all other attachable there at and more particularly set out in the above Execution Application with power to take possession thereof from Respondent, if required and to hand over the same to the Claimant and/or to such person as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper as agent of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay;”

10. I have the record of the Chamber Summons with me and there is no Affidavit in Reply. In short, the son-in-law submitted to an order of appointment of the Receiver in a Chamber Summons filed by his father-in-law in respect of this very flat.

11. It is beyond all doubt that the entire process of invocation of Arbitration on a non-existent so-called oral agreement and obtaining, within one day, a reference to Arbitration, a hearing before the Arbitrator, and, within two days, an Arbitral Award, and then promptly obtaining an appointment of the Receiver, all had one and only one objective: to prevent Fullerton from recovering its dues. There was no other purpose.

12. In pursuing this objective, the process of this Court has been thoroughly comprised and corrupted. This is in its most flagrant and blatant form inference with the administration of justice.

13. All manner of submission are attempted today, including telling me that Fullerton has an understanding with Tornado Motors. Then Mr Agrawal for the Claimant, Prithipal, with the same alacrity that his son-in-law displayed in consenting to the flat going into Receivership, agrees to that very order — one that he sought on the ground that the flat needed to be protected — being vacated. This is nothing but playing ducks and drakes with the Court and its processes. (To treat one poorly, dishonestly, or with flippant disregard.)

14. I asked Mr Agrawal if the Claimant client was in Court. Indeed he was. Then I asked if the Respondent was in Court since it was the Respondent, Jitenderpal, who had made a statement to Shriram J. I was told he was not in Court. I asked them if he was just outside Court in the corridor. Indeed he was. The Claimant stepped out and, in a few minutes, returned with his son-in-law in tow.

15. I will first allow this Chamber Summons immediately in terms of prayer clause (a), (b) and (c) which reads thus:

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to raise the warrant of attachment levied on mortgaged property namely Flat No.C/12, Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Park, Pali Hill Road, Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052; (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to discharge the Court Receiver appointed in Chamber Summons No.1468 of 2015 in Execution Application No.765 of 2015, without passing the accounts, but subject to payment by Claimant and Respondents of such charges as may be applicable, to the Court Receiver; (c) The Court Receiver be directed to hand over possession of the mortgaged property namely C/12, Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Park, Pali Hill Road, Khar- West, Mumbai 400 052, to the Applicants herein;”

16. I will now go further. The Registry will issue Suo Motu Notice under Rule 9(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 to the Claimant, Prithipal S Chada, the Respondent Jitenderpal Singh Chadha and the Advocate Mr Dattatray R Parab, B/301, Greenwoods CHSL, Chikoo wadi, Shimpoli Link Road, Boriwali (West), Mumbai 400 092, returnable on 12th March 2018 on the supplementary board, each to show cause why they should not be proceeded against and punished for having committed contempt of Court.

17. Mr Parab will also required to show cause why a recommendation should not be made to the Bar Council Maharashtra and Goa to have his name struck off the rolls for his involvement in this matter and for having made and published a thoroughly fraudulent and collusive award.

18. Since prayer clause (c) has been granted there is no reason to request the Magistrate to take further action.

19. The Court Receiver will proceed to deliver vacant possession of the flat and will eject Jitenderpalsingh Chadha from it. He will do so in the next 48 hours by 5.00 p.m. tomorrow 13th February 2018. The local police authorities at Pali Hill / Khar will render the necessary police assistance to the Court Receiver and they will act on production of an authenticated copy of this order.

20. At this stage, Jitenderpal Chadha, who, as I have noted, is now personally present in Court, undertakes that he will vacate the flat by 5.00 p.m. on 14th February 2018. This statement is accepted as an undertaking to the Court. The Court Receiver will stay his hands until 5.00 p.m. on that day. If possession is not delivered to the Applicant, Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd, through its representatives on that date, the Receiver will proceed to physically evict the Respondent and deliver vacant possession to Fullerton.

21. Finally the Registrar ( Judicial-I) will separately place a report by 12th March 2018 indicating as to what, in these circumstances, possible criminal action can be initiated by the Registry against the Claimant and the Respondent. Whether any criminal proceedings are to be taken against the Advocate Mr Parab will be decided on the next date.

22. I will note that Mr Khandeparkar for the Applicant has drawn my attention to certain decisions. The first is Ramesh Kumar & Anr v Furu Ram & Anr, 1 in which the Supreme Court says that where an award is collusive, bogus and not genuine, the Court will not and cannot make it a rule of the Court. He also draws my attention to the decisions of BN Srikrishna J (as he then was) in SBI Home Finance Ltd v Credential Finance Ltd & Ors, 2 on the question of whether a separate suit is required in a situation like this. Referencing Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 regarding fraudulent transfers, Srikrishna J held that where title has been obtained by fraud, it is ineffectual. It was not necessary to file an independent suit for this purpose.

23. Finally, there is that long line of judgments that includes AV Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government of AP & Ors3 regarding the conduct of expected by Courts of litigants. This is now too well- known to merit repetition. This case falls squarely within those parameters. A party who defrauds a court will be dealt with swiftly and without remorse or mercy. Mr Khandeparkar says this is increasingly a trend. That is shameful, and it is unforgivable. Certainly this is a case that, as I said at the beginning, has the reek of collusion and the stench of ‘playing the system’ to orchestrate a fraud to defeat a secured creditor. This Court — and by that I do not just mean myself, but this High Court — will not for a moment countenance it.

(G. S. PATEL, J)

14. Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments.

Petitioner is “playing fraud on the court". This term has been used in the Supreme court judgment S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath 27/10/1993 AIR 1994 853 “The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between parties. One who comes to the court must come with clean hands… If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” (Sec 107 IPC).

15. T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another 1977 AIR 2421, 1978 SCR (1) 742 Krishnaiyer, V.R. to save himself from the iron hand of the law “An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits...so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them.” …..

“an advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to society not to collaborate in shady actions. … The pathology of litigative addition ruins the poor of this country. Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia “if any judge is believed to be corrupt he should be named in public”. Kapadia stressed the need for uplifting the integrity, excellence and competence of the judiciary, saying this would enable them to maintain the confidence and trust of the people. Courts and its endeavor to do Complete Justice By: Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan Judge, Supreme Court of India. Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall. Disobedience of orders of a Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law, on which the judicial system rests. Judicial orders are bound to be obeyed at all costs. Howsoever grave the effect may be, is no answer for non-compliance of a judicial order. Judicial orders cannot be permitted to be circumvented. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, Courts have the power to enforce compliance of judicial orders, and also, the power to punish for contempt.

16. AN ADVOCATE WHO BEING AN OFFICER OF THE COURT IS ALSO SUBJECTING HIMSELF TO BEING A PARTY TO THE CRIME BY NOT ADVISING THE DEFENDANTS NOT TO USE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES TO HARASS PLAINTIFFS. “ An advocate is an officer of the Court and legal profession is not a trade or business, rather it is a noble profession and advocates have to strive to secure justice for their clients R.N. Sharma Advocate v. state of Haryana , 2003 (3) RCR (Cri) 166 (P&H)” The Defendants’ and his advocate have knowingly and purposely given wrong and incorrect information, suppressed material facts with the objective to gain illegal advantage and have not approached this Hon’ble High Court with clean hands and have also produced fabricated document and have knowingly committed grave criminal offences punishable by imprisonment.

LIE DETECTOR

17. The Mumbai Sessions Court on Wednesday sentenced fake stamp-paper forger Abdul Karim Telgi to life imprisonment based on

Principal Scientific Officer, lie- detection (Polygraph) Division. CFSL, CBI

Director CFSL by J. P. Verma, SP, CBI, EOU-V, Delhi polygraph examination pre-test interview, test and report by then Director, CFSL Dr. S. R. Singh

The plaintiff No 1, 2 and 3 are willing to testify before the lie detector that they are speaking the truth

The defendant who has already told may lies in the written statement should be sent to jail for up to 7 years under section 340 r/W 195 of Cr P. C for telling lies on oath in his written statement.

As the perjury has been done in this hon’ble court hence it is prayed that this Hon’ble court Should direct the judicial magistrate to take cognizance of the crimes done by the defendant and his advocate.

AMMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

18. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `the Code') which enables the parties to make amendments to the plaint, reads as under;

"Amendment of pleadings - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Amendment Act 22 of 2002

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Konkan Distilleries & Anr Vs Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors cited at (2008) 14 SCC 632

"11. It is well settled that the court must be extremely liberal in granting the prayer of amendment, if the court is of the view that if such an amendment is not allowed, a party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. . .. .. . It is always open to the court to allow an amendment if it is of the view that allowing of an amendment shall really sub serve the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation."

19 . WRITTEN STATEMENT BY OTHER DEFENDANTS

Written statements are the statements defined in Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC which states that the defendant should file written statements in 30 days from the date of issuance of the summons.

In this matter, only the defendant no 2 Atul Parikh has filed the written statement the other defendant has not filed any written statement nor do we see any advocate from their side representing them this is probably because they have refused to accept the notices and summons in the past. Hence ist s prayed to direct the office to re-issue the summons to all the defendants and take the help of the police and the advocate of the plaintiff in case they refuse to take the summons.

20. Examination of witnesses.

ORDER XVI : SUMMONING AND ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES 75(1). not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, Framed on the 6th of January, 2017 the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses one question : Weather or not The plaintiff no 1 and 2 paid Rs 45 lacs each and the Plaintiff no 3 Paid Rs 34 lacs to the defendant company web site of MCA it is learnt that DIN 00880609. Mrs ASHMI ATUL PAREKH is the director. And hence the defendant no 1 is liable to be called as a witness.

It is further prayed that orders be passed that the witness be examined before the Commissioner for taking accounts New mantralaya, GT hospital, marine lines, Mumbai.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFF BEGS TO PRAY AS UNDER:

This Hon’ble High Court be pleased to grant permission U/S 340 r/W 195 of CRPC.

R/W various provisions of IPC and to prosecute the Defendants’, his counsel / advocate and co-accused persons for their grave criminal misconduct, offences and connivance therein.

Allow the plaintiffs to amend the plaintiff.

Direct the office to re-issue the summons to all the defendants and take the help of the police and the advocate of the plaintiff in case they refuse to take the summons.

This Hon’ble High Court be pleased to grant any such other Relief as it may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.)

PLACE: Mumbai Plaintiff .

DATE: 30.03.2020

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Ashok H. Advani Age 77 Years. son of Himath J Advani Adult, Hindu, Indian Inhabitant, residing at 3D/603, Siddhivinayak CHS. Ltd, Asha Nagar, W.E.Higway, Kandivali (East). Mumbai 400101. Mobile 9820210855, the Plaintiffs’ No 3 above named do hereby on solemnly declare that what is stated in para no 1 to . of the foregoing plaint is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in the remaining pars is stated on information and belief and i believe the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai

One sdsßdx this the 30th Day of nov 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

AT BOMBAY

ORIGINAL ORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION

SUIT NO 3367/2007

1. RASHMIBHAI Ambalal PATEL

Plaintiffs

V/s

1. PAREKHSONS BUILDERS P Ltd

Defendants

Interim Application

ANIL BAJAJ

Registration No 15870 dt 10/7/2017

I code (I19586)

758/2 Neel KiranBuilding

SV Road Mumbai 400052

Mob: 8618349803/ 9411890781

internationalsocietyoflawyers@gmail.com

30-Nov-2020

actual filed may have mistakes as pic to pdf to word done

OS. IA/1/2020 IN S/3367/2007

Notarised by INDRU GY MADNAN MUMRA Reg. No. 16129:

Commision Ep. on 3-1-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Original Ordinary Jurisdiction

1/2328 /2020

PRJP/2/2021

IN SUIT NO.3367 OF 2007

HAhlc

1. RASHMIBHAI Ambalal PATEL Plaintiffs

an adult of mumbai Indian Inhabitant)

Occupation Business residing at

6C, Bharatiya Bhavan Society, 17th Road,

Under Scrtiny Khar West, Mumbai 400052.) 19 HAR 22

2. Milan Manubhai Gosalia,

an adult of mumbai Indian Inhabitant * Occupation: Business residing at

TARartments, Bhulabhai Desai Road)

iN ai40006. 203 Rs.20 293

3. Sri.Asmo dvani, INDIA an adult o mbai Indian Inhabitant TWENTY AUPEES

Occupatien: Business residing at

Building no 3D Siddhivinayak Society,

Asha Nagar, Kandivili (East)

Mumbai 400 101. Peho na

V/s

1. PAREKHSONS BUILDERS P Ltd Defendants A company registered under the

Provisions of the companies Act 1956,

And having its registered office at

Parekh Plaza, Vallabh bhai road,

VileParle ( west) Mumbai 400056

2. Atul Lalit Parekh, Contem n

Occupation: Business, having his Residential address at Parekh House,

All in

10th, Road, J.V.P.D. Scheme, ID VileParle (west) Mumbai 400049.

3. Shri ShivKumar Acyarya,

Occupation: Business, having his

Residential address at 302, Kunal Opp

Madhu Park, Corner of 1" and 10 Road

Khar (West) Mumbai-400 052.

4. Navkar Premises Co-operative

Society Ltd, a society registered under

the provisions of the Maharashtra

Co-operative Societies Act, having its

Address at Plot No: B -18, Survey No

592 Oshiwara New Link Road,

Anahri (est) Mumbai -400058.

5: KMGEntrprises,

a partip firm having its

address at 2. Homestead, 16

Dattatraya Road, Santacruz (West)

Mumbai-400 054

6. Bhupendra Nandial Gadia,

an adult Indian Inhabitant of mumbai

Occupation Business residing at

Gopal Nivas, Lajpatrai Nivas,

VileParle ( west) Mumbai 400056

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice

And

Other Pusinee Judges

of this Hon'ble Court

bit A ll n 11

0LAR

YNDRU GG

MADNANM

MUMBAI

Reg. Ne. 16129

Commision Ep. ApUk20750r 195 of Cr.PC read with 340 of Cr.P.C with section 34,35,120B an0 PC for seeking sanction of this Hon'ble Court for trial/ to

prosecute the defendant, his counsel/advocate for deliberately, in collusion, knowingly, with common intention, committing grave crimes against the plaintiff and suppressing documents from this Hon'ble High court in present proceedings concerning right, title, interest in the properties of the Plaintiffs.

1. Facts of the Case

Plaintiff no 1 had good precedence with father of the defendant No 2 Lalit parekh where he invested and both had made some money hence he and his friend the plaintiff no 2 invested 70 lakhs in the defendant no 1 company and when told that the project is not coming up they were asked and they invested another 20 lakhs in the suit property. Similarly Plaintiff no 3 defendant no 6 also invested in . thg Rperty.

2. Sindkis w e bankers till the banks were nationalized. Thereafter they continuedineusiness in black money. Defendant no 3 Shiv Kumar and his son

were brl ould get gullible persons from the rotary club and the like and lured th rians to invest ( It should be remembered at that time bank loans againstperty were not available and registration of agreement for sale was not mandatory and investment in property was a win-win situation for both investors and builders) Broker Defendant no 3 Shiv Kumar would get Rotarians from the rotary club he lured the plaintiff no 3 to invest and Defendant no 2 Atul Parekh would promise them good returns Defendant no 2 Atul Parekh is a cheat as seen from below.

3. The defendants borrow more money from Janata Sahakari Pune bank and Appeal no 15 of 2004 was filed in the Mumbai Debt Recovery tribunal -1 under

sec 17 of the Securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets act 2002 The Zuba corp report

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th 159, 160, 161 06-09- Case court, Esplanade, Mumbai under Sec 159,160,161,220(1),220(2)

A Pune shaker Bank has already done as the case against him as per the original papers got by RTI

He also owes Andhra bank 4,50,00,000(4 Crore and Fifty Lakhs only) and union Bank of India 5,00,00,000(Five crores only)

QTAR

Defendaht no 2 Atul Parekh, Defendant no 3 Shiv Kumar Acharaya and Sureshshah La issued allotment letter which reads "we have allowed" en 3-1-2025 and agreement will be signed in due course" it is an all-cash deal with plain E D no 1 and 2 who made a payment of 45 lakhs each i.e. 90 lakh and Defendant no 2 INDIAtul Parekh, Defendant no 3 Shiv Kumar and Suresh shah issued allotment letters and 50% cash and 50% cheque deal with plaintiff no 3 as it was done in the rotary club proof of this the affidavit of fellow Rotarian obtained recently after plaint. Defendant no 2 Atul filing of Parekh issued receipts for Rs 34 lakhs. The defendants borrow more money from Pune shaker bank but use it to buy out or cheat Suresh probably shah who dies but they do not start the work. They construction cheat the Defendant no 6 Bupendre gadia the 4th unable to investors who were pay his contribution of the advocate and court fees over Rs 3.0 hence he lakhs could not become plaintiff no 4.

MAANI 2A Reg.la, 6129 Commision Exp.

4. When talks begin with KMG to do a joint venture the defendant no 2 again eheats the plaintiffs and tell them that the project is cancelled and takes back the alldtmeNetters and refunds the investment thro cheques totalling to 1.08 crores thdfendant no 3 cheats by not giving the promised cheques of Rs 86 lakhs his%sare in the project 20% more than the amount invested by the plaintiffs 5. Later seeing the public Notice the plaintiffs raise a hue and cry and send a claim 'which is replied. The advocates of KMG use smart language in the supplementary agreement which promises area to the plaintiffs and Bhupendra gadia by the defendants who were told that they should not encase the cheques now that they will be given the area in the new joint venture as written in the agreement.

6. After a lot of negotiations where in money was promised but not payed a lot of complaints were made to the police anda lot of letters to the Home ministry and CM who control the inactions of the police the suit was filed. 7. Recently the advocate who took over went to meet the defendants no 3 and 6 to verify the other side of the facts of the case the defendant No 3 agreed to and set up meeting with defendant no 2 who agreed to refund the amount. The advocate was shocked to see the name board Maple

On doing some research it is apparent that there are more similar victims of fraud by the defendant No 2 hence they have decided to close the defendant no 1 company Parekhson and have started a new company Maple infrastructure

all in

portant points OTAR INDRU GA

MADNI L. Allotment letter language and why it was given if no payment w Re.i 6i29 received aCommi. yn Exp.? on 3-1-2025 Original Cheques why they were given if the allotment was not Cheating by cancelled the defendant to sell the same property to two persons 1. plaintiffs ( FIN till the payment is refunded and discharge obtained the deal in not plaintiffs' cancelled. The claim was even acknowledged in the supplementary Finally thelanguage in the agreement) supplementary agreement is clear that the defendant no 2 and 3 from their share will give the area to the plaintiffs and hence they were asked defendant no 6 to hold on to the cheques and not payment. present them for

9. The order which reads as follows

m paragraphs 4 to 21, are totally beyond the pleadings of the plaintiffs. It is furtheutted that for the averments in paragraphs 26 to 32, which refer to 6 A' the allege neotiations between the parties for settlement of there th dispute, also i_ no fation in the pleadings erec mex and Moik there is no ation in the pleadingsFhot "A" is a espIk. evds 10. Here beloy is the para wise evidence which confirms the above story both from the pt and from the affidavit of evidence of the plaintiff and written statement of the defendant himself.

Para |Affidavit of Written Ammendment no Topic Evidence Plaint statement |to plaint Why would some

one give such a

large amount in

4 Precidence cash yes

Parekhson builders

Defendant No 1 pvt Itd company

5 strike off |closed yes

6Criminal cases Atul parekh yes

MCA defendant|

7 no 1 Strike off yes

8 New firm Maple yes

GOLARINDRU G

MADNANI

Cheating case Reg. l129 acommi:en ip. Odn 3i-2025 9 filed Vijay Mallya yes Lalit Parekhs Met other plaintiffs| OF INDIE10 death and def no 66 yes

shivkumar launched|

Broture in Rotary

11 Def No 3 broker club yes

PE 5 para

receipts from Def |7 Exhibit

12 Paid 34 lakhs no 2

13 Hundi |yes

BhupendraN

14 D Gadhia

PE 5 para

6 Exhibit

15 Allotiletter BCD

Pg 5 para

6 Exhibit

16 Suresh shah

Pg 5 para

6 Exhibit

17 Shivkumar Atul B

Pg 5 para

6 Exhibit

18 Atul Parekh D

Atul replaces pg 5 para

19 Suresh shah

Agreement for sale

20 Allotment letter will be sent

page 7,8

PE para 10

page 12

21 Def no 6 Bupendra Gadia para 17 Pg 3 para 3

OAr OTAA

IN'!G

1.08 Cr and 86 to page 6 & Reg-ia iG129 oCommton Ëp.

IDIA

COv 22 cheques be given |7 para 10 on 3-1-225,

Defendants cheat

and enter into a page 7

KMG Public |Joint veture with para 11

23 notice KMG Exhibit F

page 7

para 11

Exhibit G

24 claims Plaintiffs claim &H

page8

para 12

25lies of kmg |KMG' advocate ack Exhibit

Were told not to page 9

present the para 16

cheques as they page 10

|Supplhentary |were promised the para 17

26 agreement area Exhibit N

Sahkari Bank in part of

27 Loan Pune. Exhibit N

meeting and page 12

28 denial MOU para 17

page 11

Plaintiff made a para 16

29 police complaint Exhibit P

page 9

para 14

Chief minister Plaintiff's letter Exhibit K

page 12

30 Recovery agent advertisement para 17

|Witness

31 meetinge Atmaram' affidavit yes

32 Def no 3 Meeting with def 2 YES

0AR

Claim in

Re

acomi::k.rt ëp. Oon 31-2025

the Plaint NDE

33 claim Exhibit Q

11 ermission is prayed for putting in the newspaper to know more similar victims of fraud by the defendant similar permissions are given in various

judgements.

12

2. say that mr. Rashmibhai Ambalal Patel has purchased one flat from the Defendent

No 2 Mr Atul Lalitabhai Parekh and him father Lalitabhai parekh and the deal was completed to my entire satisfaction, hence when approached ain Mr Rashmibhai Ambalal Patel and Mr Milan Manubhai Gosalia inested rs 70 lakhs and booked 2600sft at rs 6521 per sft in Vijay

nsion, situated at 10th road jvpd scheme juhu Mumbai. During that ne most of the transactions were done in cash using black money. The hand written note by Lalitabhai parekh is attached is as "Exhibit A"

Para 4

Relationship between the plaintiff and defendant

Explaining why Demonitisaton and RERA where enacted by Prime minister Modi At that time all deals were done with black money and builders took their own sweet time to give possession. Lalit Parekh fatter of defendant no 2 was a good man and kept up his word

OF

And the plaintiff no 1 had successful deal with Lalit parekh prompting the plaintiff no 1 and his friends plaintiff no 2 and defendant no 6 to invest again in the suit property.

Para 5

5l0omberg Is and new recent development

he contents of para no 5 are clear that the defendant no 1 company is closed by the director the defendant no 2 The same are also reflected in the MCA web site in para no7

nd the defendant no 2 has started his business in the new name Maple

TAR WDRU G. MAA Which is reflected in para no 8 Reg. I.5t29 Comms. p.

on 31-20, The content of para 6 show that CovT OF IND

There T, O8 are 2 cheating cased against the defendant no 2 And he has take loans from banks to the tune of 4.5 and 5 crore

13, The defendant no 2 in his written statement has committed perjury at para F says "With reference to the alleged payment of Rs 17 lakhs it was mentioned that the same was not connected with the dealing of any property what so ever and And furthe the transaction against the said payment was squared up " At pg8 7 para 13 "With reference to para 7 of the plaint these defendants deny that the plaintiff no 3 has made a payment of 34 lakhs .. The said purported payment was with regards to some other transaction which was already squared up para 12.I say that because we were family friends . *******

As he (dendant No 3) was insisting that I pay 50% in cash hence I paid 17 lac. The rec pt dated 1st May 1995 for Rs.17,00,000/- is attached as EXHIBIT "H". Theri he ook me to the office of Mr. Atul parekh of M/s Parekhsons Builders Pvt. Ltd ande made me pay the another Rs.17,00,000/ The 2nd receipt also dated 1st May 1995 for Rs.17,00,000/- is attached as EXHIBIT "P. I say that the total amount I have paid is Rs 34 lacs. He told me he will give the allotment letter after realizing the cheque, but this never happened.

Para 24. On seeing the Notice, we sent our claims to the solicitors for M/s KMG,

Mahimtura & Co and the same are attached as EXHIBIT "AD, AE, AF & AG" Para 26. On many occasions Shivkumar Acharya .. M/s KMG in a criminal

conspiracy entered into a supplementary agreementa certified copy of which we have obtained from the Sub Registrar' office. The agreements are attached as EXHIBIT "AJ, AK, AL & AM". Why should a new agreement be made and third party names ours Mr Rashmikant A Patel, Mr Milan M Gosalia and Mr Bhupendra N Gadhia and Mr. Ashok H. Advani be added if they are not an interested party. Para 8 on page 8 of the supplementary agreement says "The Parekh group shall not sell, lease, exchange, gift, create mortgage, charge or otherwise encumber or ransfer.. . the aggregate area of 7000 sqft. claimed by the said Mr Rashmikant APatel, Mr Milan M Gosalia and Mr Bhupendra N Gadhia and Mr. Ashok H. Advani.

OLAR

NCRU G

ara 29. POLICE: AP.ONAN I say that we have written letters to the police, police Reg. . 16129

commissioner the Home Minister, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Han

Commion Ep. on i-2025

written letters to commissioner of Police by Mr Milan and Mr Rashmikant an ov the same is attached as EXHIBIT "AS to AZ & AAA to AAC". OF IN

ant a .OF

Para 30

Meeting Plaint Page X para 16

The defendant No 2 attended the residence of Plaintiff no 1 for the settlement" The reference of this meeting is at page 12 para 17 held along with the old advocate of the plaintiff Bharat and company and the advocate of the defendant

no 2 prakash shah where the defendant agreed to give 1 an half times the sum received

GROUNDS DELAY

delay in trial affects faith in law SC

The SC ruled that a stay on proceedings must not exceed six months

Delay in criminal trial has a deleterious effect on the administration of justice, the court sa

t said prolongd trials can result in witnesses turning hostile or even dying and evidence Bdiluted

NEW DELH a bid to ensure speedy justice and discourage delaying tactics adopted accused in procuring a lengthy stay on trial, particularly in corruption and criminal cases, the Supreme Court

The maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" becoming the norm and aiding the accused in avoiding just desserts in a court of law. Prolonged trials can result in witnesses turning hostile or even dying and evidence being diluted

developments that frustrate victims and law enforcement agencies.

A bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel, R F Nariman and Navin Sinha said it was in the interest of society to ensure that cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act are tried expeditiously as the cancer of corruption has eaten into vital organs of

the state.

Delay in trial affects the faith in rule of law and efficacy of the legal system. It affects social welfare and development. Even in civil or tax cases, it has been laid

down

E Said the wisdom of legislature and the object of final and expeditious disposal ne matter remains pending for a long time which defeats the interest of justice,"

it said.

Be itr noted, in the said case, the following passage from Swaran Singh V. State of

Punjab3, was reproduced.

lt has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and gives up... In adjourning the matter without

any valid cause a court unwittingly becomes party to miscarriage of justic this is true in salman khan American bakery case. Shahara paid from inside the jail

OTAR NDEU AR

Mallaya also regrets that he did not follow the Indian legal Gurnaib Singh V. State system of Punjab.(2013) 7 SCC 108 The NDIA cross-examination of the witnesses was deferred without special reason and dates recording any were given after a

Reg.t S129 Con .në-p.

OF 1-2025

the views long gap. The mandate of the iaw and expressed by this Court from time to time appears to have been kept at bay. The totally learned trial Judge, as is from his perceptible, seems to have ostracised memory that a criminal trial has its own gravity and sanctity. In this regard, we may refer with profit to the pron&ncement in Talab Hajissain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar2 wherein it has been stated that accused person by his conduct cannot put a fair trial into jeopardy, for it is therimary and paramount duty of the criminal courts to ensure that the risk to fa trial is removed and trials are allowed to proceed smoothly without any interruption or obstruction."

State of U.P. V. Shambu Nath Singh 4, We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in court he must be examined on that day. The court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the court only at a heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly, they incur suffering and loss of incorne. The meagre amount of Bhatta (allowance) which a witness mayY be paid by the court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a sad plight in the trial courts that witnesses who are called through Summons or other processes stand at the doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. his primitive practise must be reformed by the presiding officers of the trial COurts and it can be reformed by everyone provided the presiding officer

Oncerned has a commitment towards duty."

SENIOR COUNSEL

15. An advocate is an officer of the court and can be disbarred

(12

cC udgement R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar General Of The High.. on 28 January, 2019 Recently even the proceeding were taken out against the advocate who Is cupposed to be an officer of the Court. In Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd V/s Jitenderpal Singh Chadha. ln EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.765 OF 2015 Prithipal S Chadha Vs. Jitenderpal Singh Chadha Bombay High Court Year 2017 G.5. PATEL, J 12th February 2018 2, There is some something very rotten in the state of our commercial litigation. It is exemplified by this case. If ever there was an example of commercial fraud and a fraud on the Court, this is it.

Chamber Summons No.993 of 2017 Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd, ("Fullerton"). seeks attach Flat No. C-12, Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Park,

Pali Hill Road, Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052. creditor of Jitenderpal Singh Chadha ("Jitenderpal") mortgaged 9.80 crores 2014 co-borrower as secur already mortgaged to IndiaBulls Housing Finance Limited on 26th Marc 2013. 4.0N2,793/- was paid to IndiaBulls facility agreement Deed of Reconveyanc

NO AR INDRU G MADN 29 Reg.16129{ Comn:? Exp. on5 -2:25

Deed of Simpre Mortgage Sub- Registrar of Assurances, Andheri. Chief INDI Metropolitànegistrate under Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 for an order of forcie possession.

Jitenderpál, Arbitral Award Court Receiver was appointed and The CMM was told that the flat was thus in custodia legis with this Court, and therefore no order of possession ought to be passed. But the truth is that Jitenderpal's father-in-law. had the court receiver appointed As if that is not convenient enough, The Arbitrator was, to my very great dismay, an Advocate of this Court, against whom propose to issue notice quite separately for his role in what followed. The award is so astonishing and so utterly remarkable in what it set out to do, and actually did, as an entirely pre-planned exercise to perpetrate a fraud on the Court, that can do better than quote the first two paragraphs of it.

"1.One Mr Prithipal Surindershingh Chadha, adult, Indian habitant, aged 60 years, residing at Pratap Kutir, 16th Cross Road, Khar, Mumbai 400 052

hereinafter referred as 'Claimant' for sake of brevity), by his letters dated 4th NOvember 2014 had forwarded me a copy of the agreement dated 4th November 014 entered into between him on one hand and Mr Jitenderpal Singh Chadha, clan habitants, (aged about 35 years), staying at C/12, Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Park, Pali Hill Road, Mumbai 400 052 (hereinafter referred as 'Respondent

Sar Sake of brevity) on the other hand with specific request that the said Sorwarded by letters them to me may be treated as a reference. A careful perusal of the aid agreement shows that the parties to the said agreement have made arrangement specific for referring the matter to Arbitration as Conciliation Act, 1996. per The Arbitration and I am satisfied that under the said agreement, l am to entertain the said entitled reference in respect of the dispute between Mr Surendersingh Chadha on Prithipal one hand and Mr hand as all the Jitenderpal Singh Chadha, on other parties have accepted and appointed me as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute and accordingly I proceed to 2. As could have been entertain the said References. seen from the Reference made by Claimant, it is his contention that he had advanced an amount of RS.35,00,000/- and Rs.1,30,00,000/-, Rs.60,00,000/ Rs.55,00,000/-aggregating to Rs2,80,00,000/-(Rs. Two crores eighty lakhs only). The Claimant handed over a cheque for Rs.1,30,00,000/- an OTA

made RTGS for Rs.60,00,000/- on or about 27th September 2012. Further, Claimant handed t over cheques along with RTGS form for Rs.35,00,000/-a Rs.55,00/-for making RTGS in favour of the Respondent on or about

R

INCRU G MADaNI

Reg. N 15129 Commi. un Exp.

November 2014. All the above payments were made by the Claimant to the OF Respondent a advance/in anticipation of delivery/sale of flat no. C/12, Cenced Apartment, 38, Union Park, Pali Hill Road, Mumbai 400 052 (hereinafter it may be referredás "Said Flat' for sake of brevity) being to the Respondent for total

on 3. i-2025

consideration amount Rs.9.80 crores."

7. What this tells us is: (i) this so-called claim of specific performance by Prithipal against his son-in-law Jitenderpal was supposedly an oral agreement for sale of the flat, and it is of this that specific performance was sought before the arbitrator; (i) The Arbitrator, Advocate Parab, was persuaded to act on the basis of a letter of 4th November 2014, which apparently references the oral agreement also conveniently said to be dated 4th November 2014; (ii) It is alleged that some payment was made on 27th September 2012 but the most recent payment was the day before the so-called agreement, viz., on on 3rd November 2014; (iv) The total consideration was, and this cannot be a coincidence, an amount of Rs 9.80 Crores, roughly the amount of Fullerton's loan to begin with.

O.It does not end at that. The Award was made on 6th November 2014, i.e. precisely two days later; two days after the so- called agreement of 4th

OVember 2014. It appears that this award was rendered on stamp paper of 29th Se Pember 2014 obtained by Advocate Parab. The operative portion of the award

says that litenderpal was to pay an amount of Rs.3,94,48,954/- to his father- in- wwith interest at 24% compounded monthly (itself utterly extraordinary), and,

law

in default, the very flat in question was to be transferred to the name of the litenderpal's father-in-law -without payment of the balance consideration. Then clause (c) made a wholly untenable direction of attachment and sale of thy OJaR NDEG and clause (d) created a charge over it in favour of the Prithipal, the while clause (e) granted the Ciaman 1é.fi decree for specific performance and claus Re. r. G129 Coimmin ERp. on 3-i-:025 granted a restraint. INDI

9. This duo of father-in-law and son-in-law then come together to this Co

GOY

when Prithipal filed Execution Application No.765 of 2015 and also filed a

OF

Chamber Summons in that Execution Application, Chamber Summons No.1468 of 2015. Prithipal moved this Chamber Summons before KR ShriramJon 27th April 2016 inter alia seeking the appointment of the Receiver in Execution. Father-in law and son-in -law were careful to arrange separate legal representation. Jitenderpal, the son-in-law, through his counsel blithely and promptly told the Court thae was in financial difficulty, that the flat had already been attached and theretoNpersuaded the Court to grant the reliefs in the Chamber Summons.

This was alloved. This is prayer clause (a) of the Chamber Summons: "(a) that this Hon'ble Cour be pleased to appoint Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai as Receiver ofAhe property viz. Flat No.C/12, Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Park, Pali Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 052 and all other attachable there at and more particularly set out in the above Execution Application with power to take possession thereof from Respondent, if required and to hand over the same to the Claimant and/or to such person as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as agent of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay"

10.1I have the record of the Chamber Summons with me and there is no Affidavit

in Reply. In short, the son-in-law submitted to an order of appointment of the Receiver in a Chamber Summons filed by his father-in-law in respect of this very flat.

t is beyond all doubt that the entire process of invocation of Arbitration on a non-existent so-called oral agreement and obtaining, within one day, a reference to Arbitration, a hearing before the Arbitrator, and, within two days, an Arbitral Award, and then promptly obtaining an appointment of the Receiver, all had one

dnd only one objective: to prevent Fullerton from recovering its dues. There was no other purpose.

12 In pursuing this objective, the process of this Court has been thoroughly

compris arised and corrupted. This is in its most flagrant and blatant form inference with the administration of justice.

13. All manner of submission are attempted today, including telling me that

Fullerton has an understanding with Tornado Motors. Then Mr Agrawal for OLAR Claimant, Prithipal, with the same alacrity that his son-in-law displayed in NOP" a Conse nsenting to the flat going into Receivership, agrees to that very order R, &/29 that he sought on the ground that the flat needed to be protected bei ".*n INDI p.. vacated. This is nothing but playing ducks and drakes with the Court and its cn-2025

orocesses. (To treat one poorly, dishonestly, or with flippant disregard.)

OF

14.1 asked Mr Agrawal if the Claimant client was in Court. Indeed he was. Then I

asked if the Respondent was in Court since it was the Respondent, Jitenderpal, who had made a statement to Shriram J. I was told he was not in Court. I asked

them if he was just outside Court in the corridor. Indeed he was. The Claimant stepped out and, in a few minutes, returned with his son-in-law in tow. 15. I will first allow this Chamber Summons immediately in terms of prayer clause (a), (bnd (c) which reads thus:

"a) Thathis Hon'ble Court may be pleased to raise the warrant of attachment levied oh nortgaged property namely Flat No.C/12, Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Pk Pali Hill Road, Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052; (b) That this Hon'ble

Court be pleased to discharge the Court Receiver appointed in Chamber N Summons No.1468 of 2015 in Execution Application No.765 of 2015, without passing the accounts, but subject to payment by Claimant and Respondents of such charges as may be applicable, to the Court Receiver; (c) The Court Receiver be directed to hand over possession of the mortgaged property namely C/12,

Cenced Apartment, 318, Union Park, Pali Hill Road, Khar- West, Mumbai 400 052, to the Applicants herein;"

16.I will now go further. The Registry willissue Suo Motu Notice under Rule 9(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 to the Claimant, Prithipal S Chada, the Respondent litenderpal Singh Chadha and the Advocate Mr Dattatray R Parab, B/301, Greenwoods CHSL, Chikoo wadi, Shimpoli Link Road, Boriwali (West), Mumbai 400 092, returnabie on 12th March 2018 on the

Supplementary board, each to show cause why they should not be proceeded gainst and punished for having committed contempt of Court.

Mr Parab will also required to show cause why a recommendation should not e made to the Bar Council Maharashtra and Goa to have his name struck off the

AlL PHNT

1

ralls for his involvement in this matter and for having made and publish a INDu *" thoroughly fraudulent and collusive award. 4 1. Since prayer clause (¢) has been granted there is no reason to requho Magistrate to Ris;..t. t s129 take further action. 19. The Court Receiver will proceed to deliver vacant possession of the flat an F INDIA

will eject Jitenderpalsingh Chadha

5.00 p.m. tomorrow 13th

from it. He will do so in the next 48 hours by February 2018. The local

Khar will render the police authorities at Pali Hill/ necessary police assistance to the Court Receiver and will act they on production of an authenticated copy of this order. 20. At this stage, Jitenderpal Chadha, who, as I have noted, is now present in Court, personally undertakes that he will vacate the flat by 5.00 p.m. on 14th February 2018. This statement is accepted as an Court Receiver undertaking to the Court. The will stay his hands until 5.00 p.m. on that day. If possession is not delivered to the Applicant, Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd, through its represenives on that date, the Receiver will proceed to physically evict the Respondentnd eliver vacant possession to Fullerton. 21. Finally the Regtrar ( Judicial-1) will separately place a report by 12th March 2018 indicating.asto what, in these circumstances, possible criminal action can be initiated by tye Registry against the Claimant and the Respondent. Whether any criminaB proceeding are to be taken against the Advocate Mr Parab will be decided on the next date.

22.I will note that Mr Khandeparkar for the Applicant has drawn my attention to certain decisions. The first is Ramesh Kumar & Anr v Furu Ram & Anr, 1 in which the Supreme Court says that where an award is collusive, bogus and not genuine,

the Court will not and cannot make it a rule of the Court. He also draws my attention to the decisions of BN Srikrishna J (as he then was) in SBI Home Finance Ltd v Credential Finance Ltd & Ors, 2 on the question of whether a separate suit is required in a situation like this. Referencing Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 regarding fraudulent transfers, Srikrishna J held that where title has been obtained by fraud, it is ineffectual. It was not necessary to file an

independent suit for this purpose.

23. Finally, there is that long line of judgments that includes AV Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government of AP & Ors3 regarding the conduct of expected by Courts of tigants. This is now too well- known to merit repetition. This case falls squarely wthin those parameters. A party who defrauds a court will be dealt with swiftly Withcut and remorse or mercy. Mr Khandeparkar says this is increasingly a trend.

all in T

at is shameful, and it is unforgivable. Certainly this is a case that, as I said at the

That i

soginning, has the reek of collusion and the stench of 'playing the system' to archestrate a fraud to defeat a secured creditor. This Court and by that I do not just mean myself, but this High Court will not for a moment counteng ODT t.

(G.S. PATEL, J)

JAR

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments. Re . :29 Coi: * *.Pj on 3 Petitioner is "playing fraud on the court". This term has been used in the OF

Supreme court judgment S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath 27/10/1993 1994 853 "The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between parties. One who comes to the court must vital document in order come with clean hands... If he withholds a to gain advantage on the other side guilty then he would be onaying fraud on the court as well as on the IPC). opposite party." (Sec 107

17. T.Arivanda ndam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another 1977 AIR 2421, 1978 SCR 742 (1) Krishnaiyg, V.R. to save himself from the iron hand of the law "An activist Judge is the' answer to irresponsible law suits...so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them.". "an advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to society not to collaborate in shady actions. ... The pathology of litigative addition ruins the poor of this country. Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia "if any judge is believed to be corrupt he should be named in public". Kapadia stressed the need for uplifting the integrity, excellence and competence of the judiciary, saying this would

enable them to maintain the confidence and trust of the people.

Courts and

its endeavor to do Complete Justice By: Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan Judge, Supreme Court of India. Let justice be done, though the heavens may

fall. Disobedience of orders of a Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law, on which the judicial system rests. Judicial orders are bound to be obeyed at

all costs. Howsoever grave the effect may be, is no answer for non-compliance of a judicial order. Judicial orders cannot be permitted to be circumvented. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, Courts have the power to enforce compliance

Or judicial orders, and also, the power to punish for contempt.

all in HT

18AN ADVvOCATE WHO BEING AN OFFICER OF THE COURT IS ALSO SUBJECTING HIMSELF T BEING A PARTY TO THE CRIME BY NOT ADVISING THE DEFENDANTS NOT TO USE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES TO HARASS PLAINTIFFS. " An advocate is an officer of the Court and legal profession is not a trade or business, rather it is a noble profession and advocates have to strive to secure justice for their clients R.N. Sharma Advocate v. state of Haryana, 2003 (3) RCR (Cri) 166 (P&H)" The Defendants' and his advocate have knowingly and purposely given wrong and incorrect information, suppressed material facts with the objective to gain illegal advantage and have not approached this Hon'ble High Court with clean hands and have also produced fabricated document and have knowingly committed grave criminal offences punishable by imprisonment.

LJEDETECTOR

19. The Mumbai Sessions Court on Wednesday sentenced fake stamp-paper Tiorger sbdul Karim Telgi to life imprisonment based on NDI:Principalientific Officer, lie- detection (Polygraph) Division. CFSL, CBI MAD MU Director GLby J. P. Verma, SP, CBI, EOU-V, Delhi polygraph examination pre SNe. . ' mmie ic test interyw, test and report by then Director, CFSL Dr. S. R. Singh on 3- The plainiff No 1, 2 and 3 are willing to testify before the lie detector that they peaking the truth

he defendant who has already told may lies in the written statement should be

sent to jail for up to 7 years under section 340 r/W 195 of Cr P. C for telling lies on oath.

28.. As the perjury has been done in this hon'ble court hence it is prayed that

this Hon'ble court Should direct the judicial magistrate to take cognizance oft crimes done by the defendant and his advocate. OTAR YNDRU G

MADNANI

Reg.. 16129

A. Amendment of pleadings

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the

OCornision ip. on-1-2025

IN

Code') which enables the parties to make amendments to the plaint, reads as under;

17 . Amendment of pleadings - The Court may at any stage of the PIOceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such dnner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments

shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Amendment Act 22 of 2002

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Konkan Distilleries &Anr

Vs Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors cited at (2008) 14 SCC 632

11. It is well settled that the court must be extremely liberal in

granting the prayer of amendment, if the court is of the view that if

such an amend ment is not allowed, a party, who has prayed for such

an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. ... .. It is

always open to the court to allow an amendment if it is of the view that

allowing of an amendment shall really sub serve the ultimate causeof

justice and avoid further litigation."

22.ntten statements are the statements defined in Order 8 Rule 1 of RU DNE CPG whth states that the defendant should file written statements in ME 130.daysrom the date of issuance of the summons.

slon

12 In thismatter, only the defendant no 2 Atul Parikh has filed the written satement the other defendant has not filed any written statement nor OTAR do we see any advocate from their side representing them this is

probably because they have refused to accept the notices and

summons in the past. R. 129

2 The Applicants / Intervenors undertake to pay such sum by way of damages or costs

award as as this Hon'ble Court may

compensation in the event of a party

by any affectedd sustaining prejudice

order that might be made on this present

Interim Application.

(O

PRAYER

WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFF BEGS TO PRAY AS UNDER:

This Hon'ble High Court be pleased to grant permission U/S 340 r/W 195 of CRPC R/W various provisions of IPC and to prosecute the Defendants', his advocate counsel and co-acCused persons for their grave criminal misconduct, offences and connivance therein. Allow the plaintiffs to amend the plaint

Direct the office to re-issue the summons to all the defendants and take the help of the police and the advocate of the plaintiff in case refyse they to take the summons. U

NA

BA This Hn'ble High Court be pleased to grant any such other Relief as it may deem 14.. onf, fit in e interest of justice and 20. equity.)

PAUa TAR QTAR

PLACE: Mumbai Applcn lu Plaintiff

DATE: 30.01.2017

PA 9 Ppple No e2

INDP! G

M N

Rey. 1. G125

Oen -1-2025 NDI Q Cn-isic Exp.

OF VERIFICATION , Mr. Ashok H. Advani Age 74 Years. son of Himath J Advani Adult, Hindu, Indian Inhabitant, residing at 3D/603, Siddhivinayak CHS. Ltd, Asha Nagar, W.E.Higway, Kandivali (East). Mumbai 400101. Mobile 9820210855, the Plaintiffs' No 3 above named do hereby on solemnly declare that what is stated in para no 1 to of the foregoing plaint is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in the remaining paras is stated on information and belief and i belive the dame to be true

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai BEFORE ME this the 18th Day of March 2020 madrar

.before me

INDRY MADNANI93/20 20 ADVOCATE huH COURT& NOTARY, 2 B-O02, DAHISAR ACCORD CHS. LTD., JAYWANT SAWANT RD., DAHISAR () MUMBAI400 068.

all in. PT

6-S3367-2007.DOC

Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORDINARY JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUrT NO. 3367 OF 2007

Rashmibhai Ambalal Patel & ors.

Versus ..Plaintiffs Parekhsons Builders Pvt. Limited & ors. ...Defendants Mr. Anil Bajaj. for Mr. the Plaintiff. Nimay

M/s. Dave,

a/w

& Prakash

Prakash

Co., R. Shah, Hiren G. Shah, i/b for Defendant nos.1 and 2. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED PC 4th FEBRUARY, 2020 1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. 2. The learned Counsel for the defendants has invited the attention of the Court to the latest affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of Mr. A. H. Advani (PW-1) dated 20th July, 2019.

3. The learned Counsel for the defendants states that the averments in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, from paragraphs 4 to 21, are totally beyond the pleadings of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that for the averments in paragraphs 26 to 32, which refer to the alleged negotiations between the parties for settlement of the dispute, also there is no foundation in the pleadings.

1/2

: Downloaded on -21/02/2020 15:37:17 Uploaded on 05/02/2020

IR INDIA AR

500 AAR TN. SHARMA FIVEH RUP Greater Mumbai

Maharashtra

Regn. No.15545

TRI3HISHANNAH SHARMA AMihen tast Mumbl

RIHI1UN SHARMA MENT Of

OEIN COVO NOTARIA Manaf asnta S. 500

Mabarashtra

Kegn. No. 15545

Regn. No. 15545

O50 OS

SAL AR

IN

NOTARIAL

T MAHARASHTRA 2021 O

AR BG 203474 RIBHANNATH SHARMA 5. Cooo

A

Mumbal

Est

Mataras

Mhei

Reg. No. 15545

OF Reg. NO. 1G I COVT

26 OCT-2821

-3 5. cooooRo

Ot 262024 26 OCT 2021

.5, TETE

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

mpower my attorneys to represent me in my legal matter to ver my property purchased from Atul Parekh.

SPECIAL Power of Attorney is made and executed on this

day of Nov 2021.

al men by these presents, that I, MILAN MAUBAI

LLA Age 70 years residing at Tirupati Apartment,

hai Desai Road, Mumbai 400006. do hereby appoint Sri

12

e

78 . HimatIAdusni

Advani, aged,about years Son/ daghter of and shoresiding at Building no 3D Siddhivinayak Society, Asha esidandivali (East) Mumbai 400 101 to be my lawful Kandiv

4

residi

iding

Naey to do below mentioned things jointly severally on my

Nagar,

to do be

attorney

behalf.

AS, in order to enable my attorney to do all acts on my

EREAS, in orde

ehalt, hereby I herebr authorize and empower Ashok H Advani the said torney, thei following

ANDLE ANY LAVwSUIT OR OTHER LEGAL ACTION THAT I MAY

HANDLEAN

HAVE AN INTEREST IN:

te and prosecute, or to appear and defend, any claims Or

To institut

igation involving me or my interest;

igation

To demand, To recover, all sums of money and all other things which now owor willl become owing or belonging to me as a result of such are

claims, and

To appoint an advocate to file a case in court on my behalf.

4 To sign on my behalf of any document concering the case.

e. To do whatever other acts and deeds required for the said purpose. f.And I hereby agree that all acts, deeds and things lawfully done by my said attorney shall be constructed as acts, deeds and things done by

me.

g.I undertake to ratify and confirm all and whatsoever that my said

attorney Shall lawfully do or cause to be done for me by virtue of the power hereby given.

h. AND, I hereby declare that my attorney Ashok H Advani shall

exercise and act upon the powers conferred herein until this power of attorney is revoked by me.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have signed this deed of power of attorney in tne presence of the following witnesses:

Executant

WITNESSES BEFORE ME

Mr. Ashok H Advani AR NO

Attomey herein signs as under

TRIBHUWANNATH Andheri East. Mumbal SHARMA

TRI9HU4A 4

A Regn. Maharashtra No. 15545

M.A.,Lherature (Eng ,. .. +91

ADVOCAE & NOTARY G"

Regn.No 1S543 TOF IN

e

INDIA

.500 FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES

AR

OTARIAL",

u. ,

NOTARJAL/ NOTARIAL NOTARAYA GOeR

RNA

Rs 500

NOTARIAL A

MAHARASHTRA 2021 O BH 0551113 2 1.3R.B.loo o oRR CA

MEN O

V

VERH

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

18 OCT 2021

.i..

lo Empower my attorneys to represent me in my legal matter to recover my property Purchased from Atul parekh. This SPECIAL Power of Attorney is made and executed on this

day of Oct 2021. Know all men by these presents, that , Rashmikant Patel, Age 76 edis residing at No 3, Sardar Patel Society, Behind Gangabai Panchal Chatralay, Vallabh

VIoyanagar, Dist. Anand, 388120 Gujarat, aged about years Son/ daughter of and residing at.

o hereby appoint Sri Ashok H Advani, residing at Building no 3D Siddhivinayak Society, Asha Nagar, Kandivili (East) Mumbai 400 101 to be my lawful attorney to do all or any of ahe following thing jointly severally on my behalf.

order to enable my attorney to do all acts on my behalf, 1 hereby authorize

REAS, in o

e and empower wer Ashok H Advani the said attorney, the following: OAN

ANDLE, ANY L

NY LAWSUIT OR OTHER LEGAL ACTION THAT I MAY HAVE AN INTEREST IN: a.

and proseCute, or to appear and defend, any claims or litigation involving me or

Tp insturure and

myinterest;

b10 dema nd, To recover, all sums of money and all other things which are now or wil owing or belo elonging to me as a result of such claims; and

hecome owing

tle a Case in court on my behalf,

dTo file

ehalf of any document concerning the case. e 10 ign on my be

1o do hatever other acts and deeds required for the said purpose. thereby agree that all acts, deeds and things lawfully done by my said attorney shall

g AndI h

ctructed as acts, deeds and things done by me.

andertake to ratify and confirm all and whatsoever that my said attorney Shall lawtuly .AIse to be done for me by virtue of the power hereby given.

do or c

AND, I hereby deciare that my attorney Ashok H Advani shal exercise and act upon the s Conferred herein until this power of attorney is revoked by me.

powers

WHEROF I have signed this deed of power of attprge IN WITNESS

following witnesses: Y the presence of the

Executant

WITNESSES: ASM Aa A. lOTE BERORE ME

PHtanu A. R. SURVE

Attorney herein signs as under

Sri Ashok H Advani,

JBAI GN. N

ADVOCATE & NOTARY

GOVT. OF INDIA

REG. No. 16353

Seen Original

PAN Aadhar/ Election

Card/ Driving License / I Card PasspRT 213| Bearing No

Dated:-

For Verification

NOTED & REGISTERED

A Page No. Dat20-0CL2021

9-01-2026 DiA

2

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13lEQQroMEfwSANp9mxI3INthy0ytJDIxRuDM4d739m0/edit?usp=sharing