These were filed in the Delhi High Court on 19 May 2023 under Diary No. 914741/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. 437 OF 2018
IN
THE MATTER OF
Seema
Sapra … Petitioner
Versus
Union
of India & Others
…Respondents
WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS/ ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER on how lawyers from the law-firm
named Inttl Advocare are appearing in this matter for Google LLC without valid
authority documents, without a valid Power of Attorney, and without a valid
vakalatnama and are doing so in violation of several applicable and binding
judgments of the Courts and of Bar Council of India Rules
1. Lawyers
from the law-firm Inttl Advocare who have appeared or have entered appearance
for Google LLC in the present Writ Petition Criminal 437/2018 include the lawyers
listed on the Vakalatnama dated 6 April 2018 and described as Advocates of the
law-firm Inttl Advocare having its Office at Express Trade Tower, B-36, Sector
– 132, Noida Expressway, Noida 201303, National Capital Region of Delhi INDIA
Phone +91 120 2470200 - 298 (Extn. 124) inttl@inttladvocare.com
|
The lawyers listed on the
vakalatnama are the following: Mr Hemant Singh Ms Preetika Singh Ms Mamta R Jha Mr Manish Mishra Ms Shilpa Arora Mr Pranav Narain Mr Waseem Shuaib Ahmed Mr Abhijeet Rastogi Mr Vipul K Tiwari Mr Ankit Arvind Ms Shruttima Ehersa Ms Akansha Singh Mr Rohan Krishnan Ms Saumya Gupta Ms Shreya Khandelwal |
2. In
addition to the above Advocates, certain other lawyers have appeared or entered
their appearance in this matter for Google LLC and their names are mentioned in
various court orders. These include the following:
|
Mr Sajan Poovayya Sr. Advocate Ms. Priyadarshi Bannerjee Ms. Roshnara Rauf Mr. Pratibhanu S. Kharola Ms. Sakshi Shalini Ms. Sakshi Jhalani Mr Rohan Ahuja Mr Vatsalya Vishal Ms Amishi Sodani |
3. Despite
the mention of so many names in the Vakalatnama and in Court orders, the three
lawyers who have actually appeared for Google LLC in this case are Sajan
Poovayya Sr Advocate, Mamta Jha and Shruttima Ehersa. Shruttima Ehersa has been
the constant and has argued for Google LLC in this matter except when Senior
Advocate Sajan Poovayya appeared.
4. The
filings in this matter on behalf of Google LLC include the following:
|
A vakalatnama dated 6 April 2018
filed on behalf of Google LLC on 6 April 2018 under the signature of
Shruttima Ehersa as Advocate of Inttl Advocare. A copy of this document is
annexed hereto as Annexure A. A copy of Power of Attorney dated
08.03.2018 in favour of Mr Yashwant Rai Grover, Constituted Attorney of
Google LLC filed on 23 January 2019 under the signature of Shruttima Ehersa
signing for Ms Mamta Jha as Advocate of Inttl Advocare. This Power of
Attorney is executed by Mr Kenneth H. Yi on behalf of Google LLC and is dated
8 March 2018. A copy of this document is annexed hereto as Annexure B. A
copy of a certificate dated 2 May 2019 of one Ms Lily Kley under Section 65B
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 filed on 9 May 2019 under the name of Ms
Manta Jha Advocate of Intll Advocare but signed for her by another person
whose name is illegible. A
copy of this document is annexed hereto as Annexure C. |
5. The
Power of Attorney dated 8 March 2018 that has been produced in favour of Mr
Yashwant Rai Grover as Constituted Attorney of Google LLC is on its own terms valid
only for Civil Proceedings pending before Courts of Civil Jurisdiction. This
Power of Attorney is therefore not valid for the present matter which is a
Criminal Writ Petition bearing number 437/2018 being heard by the Delhi High
Court in its Criminal Jurisdiction. This Power of Attorney therefore cannot be
used in these proceedings or relied upon to execute the vakalatnana in the
present proceedings which are criminal proceedings. Mr Yashwant Rai Grover
has no authority to act as the Constituted Attorney for Google LLC in this
case. The Vakalatnama dated 6 April 2018
executed by Mr Yashwant Rai Grover is therefore invalid on this ground alone.
6. The
Power of Attorney dated 8 March 2018 contains the following statement: “I
further state that neither the present Power of Attorney nor any past Power of
Attorney or document executed on behalf of the Company may be deemed to either
render the Attorney as an agent for service on or for receiving any summons or
notices or any documents or pleadings in any manner on behalf of the Company”. The
Petitioner submits that neither Mr Yashwant Rai Grover nor any lawyers
appointed under a vakalatnama signed by him had any authority to accept any
notice or document or pleading on behalf of Google LLC.
7. The
Delhi High Court issued notice in the present writ petition to Google LLC and
Google India by order dated 12 February 2018.
8. The
Petitioner received the following email from Ms Mamta Rani Jha of Inttl
Advocare on 21 March 2018.
|
---------- Forwarded message
--------- From: Mamta
<mamta@inttladvocare.com> Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:44 PM Subject: SEEMA SAPRA vs. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS, W.P. (CRL) 437/2018 PENDING BEFORE HIGH COURT OF DELHI [Our
Ref: HC/2175] To: sapraconsultants@gmail.com
<sapraconsultants@gmail.com>, seema.sapra@gmail.com
<seema.sapra@gmail.com> Cc: Hemant Singh
<hemant@inttladvocare.com>, Pranav Narain
<pranav@inttladvocare.com>, Shruttima Ehersa
<shruttima@inttladvocare.com> Dear Ms. Sapra, We represent our client Google LLC,
Respondent No. 5, in the captioned matter. For any further communication, you
may please contact us. With warm regards, Mamta Rani Jha Partner & Head – Litigation |
9. The
Order passed on 27 April 2018 is reproduced below.
|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI W.P.(CRL) 437/2018 SEEMA SAPRA ... Petitioner Represented by: Petitioner in
person versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ...
Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr.Sajan Poovayya, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Priyadarshi Bannerjee, Ms.Mamta R.Jha and Ms.Shruttinaa, Advocates for respondent No.5 Insp.Sanjay Kumar, PS Saket CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA O R D E R 27.04.2018 No steps have been taken for
service of respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6. However, learned senior counsel for
respondent No.5 enters appearance. The main prayer of the petitioner
in the present petition is removal of the anonymous blog from blogger at
Google titled as ‘Seema Sapra Alert’ and published at
‘http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.in/’. Considering the contents of the
blog which are totally uncalled for and unwarranted, respondent No.5 is
directed to remove the anonymous blog as noted above. Learned senior counsel for
respondent No.5 fairly states that since respondent No.5 has entered
appearance and all necessary details can be provided by respondents No.5,
respondent No.6 is not a necessary party. In this view of the matter, no
notice be issued to respondent No.6. In the meantime, respondents No.1
and 2 be served through the Standing Counsel, Union of India and respondent
No.3 be served through the Standing Counsel (Criminal), Govt. of NCT of Delhi
by the petitioner. Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3. Copy of
the petition be supplied to learned Standing Counsel within two days. Status
Report be filed before the next date. Learned senior counsel for respondent
No.5 assures that any cooperation which is required in the investigation of
the matter, will be rendered to respondent No.3. List on 1st November, 2018. MUKTA GUPTA, J. APRIL 27, 2018 |
10. The
Petitioner submits that the lawyers who appeared for Google LLC on 27 April
2018 did so without authority and without a valid vakalatnama. These lawyers
were Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Priyadarshi Bannerjee, Ms. Mamta
R.Jha and Ms. Shruttima Ehersa. The submissions and statements made by Mr Sajan
Poovayya to the Court during this hearing on 27 April 2018 were unauthorised.
11. The
following statement was made by Mr Sajan Poovayya on behalf of Google LLC
during the hearing on 27 April 2018.
|
Learned senior counsel for
respondent No.5 fairly states that since respondent No.5 has entered
appearance and all necessary details can be provided by respondents No.5,
respondent No.6 is not a necessary party. In this view of the matter, no
notice be issued to respondent No.6. |
12. It
is submitted that neither Mr Sajan Poovayya nor his briefing counsel had any
authority to appear for or speak for Google LLC (respondent 5), and that this
statement made by Mr Sajan Poovayya to the Court during the hearing on 27 April
2018 was not only unauthorised but also inaccurate. An incorrect statement was
made by Mr Sajan Poovayya that participation of Google India (respondent 6) was
not necessary in the present Writ Petition. The Court did not issue notice to
Google India because of this unauthorised and incorrect statement made by
lawyers who had no authority to make this statement or to represent or make
submissions on behalf of Google LLC. The absence of Google India from these
proceedings has facilitated the fraudulent attempted sabotage of the present
proceedings.
13. The
Petitioner therefore prays that fresh notice be issued both to Google LLC and
Google India.
14. Mr
Yashwant Rai Grover, the Constituted Attorney of Google LLC under the Power of
Attorney dated 8 March 2018 is an Associate in the Law-firm Intll Advocare. The
Power of Attorney states that it will terminate once Yashwant Rai Grover is no
longer an employee of the firm or no longer serves in the same capacity at the
firm. We can assume that the reference to the “firm” in the Power of Attorney
is to the law-firm Intll Advocare. Mr Hemant Singh is the Founder and Managing
Partner of Intll Advocare. Ms Mamta Jha is Senior Partner in Intll Advocare. Ms
Shruttima Ehersa is an Associate in Intll Advocare.
15. The
Petitioner submits that the same person cannot simultaneously act as the
Constituted Attorney of a Party and also the counsel/ advocate of that Party
before a Court of Law in India. The word “person” in this proposition would
include a Law Firm Partnership and its partners/ members as well as all
retained/ salaried lawyers, including non-partner associates of the firm. For
this proposition of law, the Petitioner relies upon (i) the Delhi High Court
decision in Anil Kumar and Anr vs Amit rendered on
17 November, 2021; (ii) the Delhi High Court decision in Baker Oil Tools
(India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Baker Hughes Ltd. & Ors., 2011 (47) PTC 296
(Del); and (iii) on the Bar Council of India Rules. The relevant extract from Anil
Kumar and Anr vs Amit is reproduced below.
|
“6. The question these petitions
was whether Mr. Amarjeet Singh Sahni, who was acting as the power of attorney
holder of the Plaintiff, Mr. Amit Ved/Plaintiff/Respondent herein
(hereinafter "Plaintiff"), and had verified the plaint on behalf of
the said Plaintiff could appear also as a counsel in the matter. In C.R.P.
75/2020, vide order of the Court dated 13th July, 2021, Mr. Sahni submitted
that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama and continue as the power of attorney
holder and he would no longer act as a counsel for the Plaintiff. He again
assures this Court that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama in the Trial Court
proceedings and he would no longer act as a counsel for the Plaintiff in this
matter. He submits that he shall take steps within 2 weeks for substitution
of the Vakalatnama by a new counsel. 7. It is made clear that the
practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients,
as also as advocates in the matter is contrary to the provisions of the
Advocates Act, 1961. Any advocate who is engaged by a client would have to
play only one role, i.e., that of the advocate in the proceedings and cannot
act as a power of attorney holder and verify pleadings and file applications
or any other documents or give evidence on behalf of his client. This aspect
has to be scrupulously ensured by all the Trial Courts. This legal position
has been settled by various decisions. In Baker Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors. v. Baker Hughes Ltd. & Ors., 2011 (47) PTC 296 (Del), the
Court held: "Thus as is manifest from the
said rule, it would be a professional misconduct if a lawyer were to don two
hats at the same time. However not only that, the partnership firms have a
hurdle for acting in the said two capacities even under The Partnership Act, as
every partner in a partnership firm is an agent of another and if one were to
be acting as an advocate for a client, the rest would also be in the same
capacity by virtue of agency and the same would be the situation in case of
an advocate acting as a client. However, it cannot be forgotten by any who
has ever been graced with the honour of wearing the robe that the lawyer is
first an officer of the court and his prime duty is to assist the court in
the administration of justice. The rules of conduct as per the Bar Council Of
India Rules may act as a guardian angel for ensuring the moral conduct of the
lawyers but the legacy of the traditions of the Bar cannot be bedaubed by a
few for the lucre of commercial gains. A lawyer cannot forget that this is
called a noble profession not only because by virtue of this he enjoys an
aristocratic position in the society but also because it obligates him to be
worthy of the confidence of the community in him as a vehicle of achieving
justice. The rules of conduct of this profession with its ever expanding
horizons are although governed by the Bar Council of India Rules but more by
the rich traditions of the Bar and by the cannons of conscience of the
members of the calling of justice of being the Samaritans of the society.
Thus the foreign companies and firms must respect the laws of this land and the
solicitors and law firms are equally not expected to discharge their duties
as clients for these foreign companies/firms. Law is not a trade and briefs
no merchandise and so the avarice of commercial gains should not malign this profession.
Hence there can be no divergent view on the legal proposition that an
Advocate cannot act in the dual capacity, that of a constituted attorney and
an advocate." |
16. The
Power of Attorney filed for Google LLC in this matter is in favour of Mr
Yashwant Rai Grover as Constituted Attorney. Mr Yashwant Rai Grover is an
associate lawyer in the law firm Intll Advocare. Therefore, other lawyers of
Intll Advocare including its Managing Partner, other Partners, and Associates
cannot appear as Counsel for Google LLC in the present case. The Vakalatnama
executed by Intll Advocare Lawyer Mr Yashwant Rai Grover in favour of his
employers and colleagues at Intll Advocare is invalid and against Bar Council
of India rules.
17. All
the lawyers associated with the law-firm Intll Advocare whose name appears on
the vakalatnama or who have appeared for Google LLC in this matter or whose
name appears in Court Orders as having appeared for Google LLC had/ have no authority
to represent Google LLC as Counsel in the present case before the Delhi High
Court. All Court appearances by them and all submissions/ representations/
filings made by them in the present case in the Delhi High Court were made without
authorization by Google LLC and therefore cannot be accepted by the Court.
18. Inttl
Advocare has also filed a copy of a certificate dated 2 May 2019 of one Ms Lily
Kley under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on 9 May 2019 under the
name of Ms Manta Jha Advocate of Intll Advocare. This certificate is also fraudulent
(this aspect will be dealt with separately) and it is in any case an
unauthorised filing which cannot be accepted by the Court. The Petitioner will
deal with this certificate separately in detail, but she draws the attention of
the Court to the fact that this certificate also inaccurately refers to an
order of this Court as having been passed in civil suit number 437/2018,
whereas the present proceedings are Writ Petition Criminal 437/2018.
19. In
her earlier Preliminary Written Submissions dated 6 March 2023, the Petitioner
inter alia stated the following about the conduct of the lawyers appearing for
Google LLC:
|
“… 12. Certain
lawyers have appeared for Google LLC in this matter. They have chosen to
remain silent on who deleted the Blog, and have not attempted to correct the
misrepresentation by the Delhi Police that the Blog was deleted by Google.
Prima facie it appears as if the lawyers who have appeared for Google LLC in
this matter are part of the criminal conspiracy to scuttle any investigation. … 15. The
Petitioner points out that the failure of the lawyers appearing for Google
LLC to correct this falsehood floated in the Police Status Report dated 25
October 2018 is suspicious and leads to the inference that the lawyers
appearing for Google LLC have obstructed the administration of justice. …” |
20. The
lawyers from Intll Advocare have not only appeared for Google LLC in this case
without a valid vakalatnama or authorization, thereby impersonating as counsel
for Google LLC, but they have also attempted to scuttle any investigation, have
misdirected the Court and the Police, and have participated in the fabrication and
filing of false evidence. The conduct of the lawyers from Inttl Advocare in the
present case amounts to serious criminal misconduct amounting to the commission
of offences for fabrication of evidence under Section 192 Indian Penal Code, fabrication
of false evidence for use in a judicial proceeding under Section 193 Indian
Penal Code, using evidence known to be
false under Section 196 Indian Penal Code, using as true a certificate known to
be false under Section 198 Indian Penal Code, causing disappearance of evidence
of offence, or giving false information to screen offender under Section 201 Indian
Penal Code and other offences of the Indian Penal Code. A separate note will
address in detail the acts of omission and commission (amounting to these
offences) by the lawyers from Inttl Advocare who have appeared for Google LLC
in this matter without legal authority.
21. The
Petitioner is being targeted to prevent her from filing other appropriate
petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and to prevent her from
having the present Writ Petition heard by this Hon’ble Court.
22. The
Petitioner’s right to life is being grossly violated on a daily basis, her life
in in danger, and she is being poisoned with chemical agents. The present
petition itself contains voluminous evidence regarding the ongoing threat to
the life of the Petitioner.
23. On
5 March 2020, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court of
India seeking protection under diary no. 9134/2020. That Petition was not
listed immediately and from March 2020, the Petitioner was compelled to sleep
in her car parked outside Gate 8 of the Delhi High Court from March to September
2020, during the Covid pandemic. The car is stationary and broken down. The
Petitioner during this time had no access to a toilet, or to food, or to water
for drinking or washing clothes or bathing. The Petitioner during this time was
targeted by men being used to follow her, throw stones at her, abuse her, call
her “paagal”, hit her with lathis, poison and sedate her with chemical fumes
when she was sleeping in her car.
24. Since
September 2020, the Petitioner is renting some basic premises in Rajokri and is
also being targeted there. She has been sedated and poisoned using chemicals/
substances added to her food and drink. She is being sedated and poisoned with
chemical fumes. The entire property has been damaged to facilitate this
poisoning. Her premises are being entered into in her absence. Large quantities
of nitrous oxide gas, chloroform fumes, nerve agent fumes, toxic chemical
fumes, noxious acrid corrosive fumes/ smoke, neurotoxins, hs2 gas, LPG gas,
pesticides, organophosphates, and poisonous gas/ chemical fumes are being
pumped into the Petitioner’s rented premises in Rajokri every day and night.
These fumes are being used to render the Petitioner unconscious and are being
used to poison her.
25. The
Petitioner is being followed by several men on mobikes and cars whenever she
leaves her premises. She is followed every day and all the time, even when she
leaves the Delhi High Court or the Supreme Court. These persons following the
Petitioner are being used to target her with toxic chemicals, obstruct, harass,
and intimidate her. They are also being used in attempts to tamper with her
food and drink in order to drug her and poison her.
26. Men
being used to target the Petitioner are stationed outside her premises in
Rajokri at all times, both during the day and through the night.
27. The
Petitioner’s transport options from Rajokri are being interfered with and
attempts are made to obstruct her from accessing transport.
28. The
Petitioner’s Writ Petition before the Supreme Court was listed on 12 May 2023
and is now expected to be listed for hearing in July 2023 (Writ Petition Civil
No. 548/ 2023). Since the Petitioner took steps to have this Supreme Court Writ
Petition heard by removing the defects, the sedating and poisoning has
intensified. The Petitioner’s life is in grave and immediate danger.
29. The
fraud and forgeries committed in the present matter by the Delhi Police and by
the lawyers for Google LLC have created an additional threat to the life of the
Petitioner and the Petitioner is being targeted using the Delhi Police to
prevent her from pursuing the present matter. The Petitioner now faces a threat
to her life from the Policemen who have filed false status reports in this case
and from the lawyers who have committed and facilitated the fraud in this case.
30. The
Petitioner is also being targeted with toxic chemicals inside the Delhi High
Court and in the Supreme Court. She has been targeted with toxic chemicals
including by Policemen both outside and inside the court-room even during the
hearings of the present case.
31. The
Delhi Police has been weaponised against the Petitioner and it is clear that
the targeting of the Petitioner is going on with the full connivance,
participation and blessing of the Delhi Police.
32. The
Petitioner is therefore also seeking protection orders from this Hon’ble Court
also in the present case.
33. The
Writ Petitioner is being sedated, poisoned, harassed, targeted, abused,
threatened with violence, and being subjected to planned and deliberate sleep
deprivation torture.
34. The
Petitioner is facing a threat to her life on account of the ongoing attempted
cover-up of her whistleblower complaints against General Electric Company in
respect of its corrupt dealings in tenders for the Marhowra diesel locomotive
factory Project of the Railway Ministry and further criminal offences committed
as part of a planned obstruction of justice campaign to cover up the original corruption,
fraud, bribery and forgery.
35. The
Petitioner is also facing a threat to her life on account of non-redressal and
an ongoing attempted cover-up of her complaint of sexual assault and sexual
harassment against lawyer Soli J Sorabjee (now deceased) and her complaint of
sexual harassment, planned sexual assault and retaliation against lawyer Raian
N Karanjawala.
FILED
BY
Seema
Sapra
Petitioner
in Person
19
May 2023
New Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment