UNHOLY NEXUS BETWEEN JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND ADVOCATES LEADING TO NEMESIS OF HAPPY LIVING

UNHOLY NEXUS BETWEEN JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND ADVOCATES LEADING TO INJUSTICE AND NEMESIS OF HAPPY LIVING/DEMOCRACY.
AND THEREFORE THERE SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE WAY TO CHALLENGE FINAL ORDERS OF SUPREME COURT WHICH ARE PRESENTLY NOTCHALLENGEABLE OR JUST A FARCE BY REVIEW AND OR CURATIVE.
ACTS/ORDERS OF JUDGES IN DEFERENCE TO RULE OF LAW SHOULD BE A PUNISHABLE OFFENCE. AND PURSUING ILLEGAL AND UNTENABLE PLEAS BY ADVOCATES SHOULD BE PUNISHABLE ACTS, MANDATORILY AS A PART OF ORDER OF SUCCESSFUL APPEAL.
The petitioner submits it with a stark example wherein major organizations of Government of India are involved.
The Petitioner also submits that he is liable for any punishment, willingly in multiples as allowed by law, in case if his submissions as to facts are found to be wrong, misleading and or frivolous or vexatious.
1. The complainant has worked for 125 months since 8.11.2006 as per orders of the judicial process, the DRT, Pune in the interest of Bank of India. As per law, precedents and the order of the 'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune’, the Bank was liable to pay charges of the complainant. However Bank paid only for six months and therefore defied orders of the 'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune'. The 'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune' repeatedly directed the bank to pay but Bank did not pay. The complainant has worked without a complaint which has not been disputed anytime throughout the litigation. The complainant worked by investing huge borrowed amount hoping for early disposal of the matter.

2. The complainant invoked provisions of the MSMED Act 2006 before the MSMEDF Council Pune, and an award on 12.9.12 was granted in favor of the Complainant with directions to DRT to ensure that the Complainant was paid, and to Bank to pay the charges of the complainant. The bank belatedly challenged the award in District court vide MCA 352/13 but was dismissed. Bank again challenged the award dated 12.9.12 before the high court Bombay by ARA15/2014 but it was dismissed by imposing addnl Rs 500000/- on Bank of India as fine payable to complainant.

3. After the award attained finality as per sec 34, 35 and 36 of arbitration act, it was put for execution vide DKT 1741/12 , and the complainant received partial amount when the Bank could get an exparte adinterim with delay condonation of some fictitious delay in SLP 12444/16. The complainant submitted its say with separate IA for initiating perjury proceedings against the Bank of India. However the Supreme Court did not refer to any submissions and 5 IAs of the complainant and set aside the partially executed award passed in arbitral proceedings of special enactment MSMED Act 2006.

4. The judges of the supreme court of India passed an order, reportable, dated 5.12.2017 in CA 5150/17 totally relying on misrepresentation and magic or special affinity towards very senior counsel shri Dushyant Dave, falsely interpreting that the complainant was working for the auction purchasers because as per bank and its learned advocates the possession was transferred to auction purchasers on 13.11.2006(30.11.2006) therefore auction purchasers are liable to pay charges of complainant since 24.7.2008. And therefore the bank should recover the amount paid to complainant after adjusting payment till 24.7.2008. And the complainant should recover his charges as per law from auction purchasers and judicial bodies, the 'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune' and the MSMEDF council, Pune.

5. The total order dated 5.12.2017 in CA 5150/17 is based on wrong/fraudulent submission that possession was transferred to auction purchasers on 13.11.2006, because on 13.11.2006 there was stay of the Small causes court Pune in MCA 157/2006 restraining transfer of possession. And it was the police who obstructed transfer of possession. The police commissioner and deputy commissioner of police, pune have admitted on record that they have obstructed transfer of possession to auction purchasers on 13.11.2006. And therefore possession could not be transferred to auction purchasers on 13.11.2006. It is on record that even bank has submitted on 20.3.2007 by its application to 'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune', that the possession could not be transferred to Auction purchasers on 13.11.2006.

6. However the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' did not even enquire or see say of the 'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune' or the complainant who were holding the possession, and also did not read the say of auction purchasers to whom the possession is alleged to have been transferred. But relied on blatant/fraudulent lies of the reputed advocate Dushyant Dave and bank who was not party to the possession.

7. Normally in any sale transaction, it is the seller who is responsible to maintain the property, but only till it is transferred to buyer. In present case it has been fraudulently alleged that the property sold in auction has been transferred to bonafide owners (auction Purchasers) on 13.11.2006 and still it is being maintained by the seller till 13.7.2017(when 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' by an order absolved complainant of further responsibility) and therefore the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' ordered that the auction purchasers should pay charges to seller/'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune'/complainant. The commonsense that when property is sold, after receiving total price and after possession is transferred to bonafide purchasers, then there is no reason why it has to be maintained by the seller/'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune' for 133+ months and still then why purchasers should pay for the maintenance of property while in custody of seller was maliciously ignored by the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' to favor the famous senior counsel Shri Dushyant Dave.

8. The true facts are that the auctions Purchasers have not received the possession even as on date (22.7.2018) despite paying the total agreed price 142 months. They were never party to the litigation. But they were impleaded suu motto at the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' level. They were never heard. Their say was not considered at all. One of them who was handling the transaction committed suicide because they could not get the possession as planned and stand to commitments to their creditors. Still they are fastened with liability to pay the complainant. Complainant submitted the death certificate to 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' and without enjoining his legal heirs they have been fastened with illegal liability by the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India'.

9. Further the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' ruled in order dated 5.12.2017 in CA 5150/17 set aside a partially executed award which was passed as per arbitral proceedings special enactment of ' The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006' anf attained finality in the eyes of law as per sec 34,35 &36 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996', where in as per sec 5 of the 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996' no judicial intervention is allowed. The 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' not only interfered in execution proceedings of partially executed award, but reversed the proceedings by directing Bank to recover what was delivered after duly ascertained by due process of law and delivered in delivery of justice in execution proceedings.

10. Further the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' ruled in order dated 5.12.2017 in CA 5150/17 that the MSMEDF council Pune does not have jurisdiction to pass an award ensuring payment to complainant from 'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune'/Bank as per sec 15/16 of ' The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006' . When as per sec 24 of the MSMED Act 2006 it has got exclusive jurisdiction with overriding effect to pass an award to pass an award ensuring payment to complainant from 'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune'/Bank as per sec 15/16 of ' The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006' .

11. Further the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' ruled in order dated 5.12.2017 in CA 5150/17 that the complainant should have agitated its grievance of delayed payment with penal interest as per provisions of ' The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006' from DRT/'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune'/Bank before DRT itself! When it has been enacted by the parliament of India that DRT as per sec 17 has jurisdiction only to entertain application from lenders against its borrowers for recovery of debts.

12. The 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' totally ignored the malicious acts of the bank in order to favor famous advocate Dushyant Dave. Simple things like, the appeal of Bank was not in accordance with law. It in fact did not present itself as a legal juristic entity, which is a punishable offence under the companies Act. This was brought to the notice of 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' in writing on record several times.

13. The 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' knowingly ignored the breach of adinterimn of 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' obtained by bank itself which is contempt in the eyes of law and terms the petition infructuous. And renders it to be dismissed as per provisions of 038 r 11 of 'Code of Civil procedure'.

14. Sec 19 of the ' The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006' makes it mandatory for the buyer to deposit 75% of the due amount in terms of award before the appeal is entertained. Still the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' without asking the bank to deposit 75% of the due amount in terms of award as on the date of filing entertained and set aside the partially executed award.

15. There are many other violation of law but the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' ignored it as the appeal was presented by the famous advocate Mr. Dushyant Dave. Knowingly acting to frustrate the objectives of the act enacted by the Parliament of India is no less treacherous act as compared to terrorists.

16. It is the bank who has been evading our legitimate payment, but now without adjusting the amount payable to us as per order dated 5.12.2017, has directed the executioner court who had delivered partial amount in execution proceedings of award to arrest and imprison our Managing Director for failing to return the total amount without adjusting the amount payable to us till 24.7.2008. But it is we, our Managing Director who is on the run evading arrest despite being not paid charges for hard work of 125 months.

17. We filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court 189/18 seeking directions to squash the orders of district court Pune, to arrest and imprison our managing Director for failing to return the total amount, as the recovery from us is in defiance to and by misrepresentation of orders of supreme court dated 5.12.2017 in CA 5150/2017, by misrepresentation of orders and without adjusting the amount payable to me as per order dated 5.12.2017 and without calculations as per law. The amount delivered to us as our unpaid wages, property in execution proceedings of decree after ascertained by due process of law cannot be taken back without due process of law. It went before the same judge who passed the order dated 5.12.2017 who refused to entertain.

18. We filed RP 777/18 along with IA for initiating proceedings of perjury against the Managing Director, Bank of India, within fifteen days of the impugned order however it could be taken for chambers only after almost four months, i.e. on 10.4.2018. The complainant submitted all the details with additional true copies of the orders to substantiate the true facts. However as a procedure it was placed before the same judges who passed the impugned order. With their preconceived notions and predetermined intentions, the honble judges of the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the impugned order. And the IA for perjury was just disposed.

19. The remedy of curative before the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India’ is restricted to those who can afford to pay senior counsels for a certificate which is mandatory while filing a curative. The ‘Hon’ble Supreme Court of India' has delegated its powers to senior counsels to screen and certify judiciable issues. Despite so many certificates that have been issued so far, however none beyond two digits could succeed. This indicates that the procedure is just a facility by the Honble constitutional bench to their senior counsels to exploit the grievance of litigants and earn out of it. There absolutely is no binding responsibility or accountability if a wrong certificate is issued. The fact that it acts as an impediment to access of justice and adds to delay in delivery of justice is ignored in the interest of senior counsels.

20. The order dated 5.12.2017 in CA 5150/17 of 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' confirms that complainant has worked for 125 months and is not paid as per the laws of the land but still it is the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' who has aided the bank to exploit the services of complainant and evade payment. There are adequate laws to avoid exploitation of labor like the minimum wages act. The award granted to complainant in present case is under the provisions of ' The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006' which is meant especially to ensure speedy timely payment with penal interest in case of delay as a matter of right under the statute. The government intends to avoid sickness and closure of SMEs by the MSMED Act 2006. However in present case the judges of the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' have knowingly rendered complainant to sickness and closure. The complainant despite working without a complaint for 125 months is rendered homeless on the run to evade arrest and imprisonment.

21. It is unfortunate that our system allows absolute authority to judges of 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' and there is no effective relief or remedy against it. The judges are provided with blanket immunity. They lose nothing if they violate the law but they can earn if they please the advocates. This is against democratic principles. It is the nemesis of happy living at the hands of judiciary.

22. We complained to the chief justice of India vide Diary no 4596 dated 17.1.2018 but till date is is under consideration.

23. We filed complained with the President of India, who directed Joint secretary, Government of India, Department of justice to take appropriate steps in the matter. But nothing has happened till date.

24. We complained to the Prime Minister of India but the matter is pending.

25. We complained to the speakers of the two houses and have not received any response.

26. We complained to some of Members of parliament, and we are told that they are pursuing the matter. They want us to inform many more Members.

27. This is an appeal to all to join hands to move the parliament to enact law making the acts/orders of judges in deference to rule of law a punishable offence invariably in appeal itself. Similarly pursuing illegal and untenable pleas by advocates should be punishable offence invariably in appeal itself.

28. Because role of judges cannot be justified unless they deliver justice in terms of rule of law. And so is the fact that the role of advocates cannot be justified if they cannot screen out illegalities in the process and avoid delay in effective delivery of justice.