Justice Concerned Citizens    ContactUs@judgesplot4plot.com
"CORRUPTION: Of Lokayukta, By Lokayukta & For Lokayukta"

"Lok Ayukta has Officially Legalized CD contents + Sales + Campaign in Court:
CD named as  "Lok Ayukta  Land Scam" or "1,000 JUDGES JUDICIAL TYRANNY"

Sample of our 10 years Investigation & worth of CD you are Donating-for.
Such & more documents are reproduced "in-as-is; i.e., Photo Copies of following Docs."  in CDs of  Rs 2,000 & above Versions.

NOTE*: 1,000 Judges  are Members of a Housing Society meant for Karnataka Government Employees
[State Police & CBI both have concurrent Powers], as they have abused Their Judicial Office as Judges + committed Crimes in their personal capacity.

A judicial scandal has always been regarded as far more deplorable 
than a scandal involving either the executive or a member of the legislature

The present Chief Justice of India who expressed as above, hope He never realized that certain Corrupt Judges like N. Venkatachala & His predecessors are there in Judiciary; who are bent upon to Hush-up "1,000 Judges Scam" misusing Lok Ayukta. Booting the "Canons of Judicial Ethics".  That is Anti-corruption Bureau legalizing Billion Rupees worth + Himself + 1,000 Judges' Corruption, Contempt of Laws, Contempt of Judgments, etc., which are now being heard by High Court . 
"Anti=corruption Bureau"being converted by its Chief into"Corruption Legalizing Bureau".

"HONEY MOON BETWEEN LOKAYUKTA & B.D.A "
[Fax Nos of Lokayukta; 080-2228 1470   ....  080-2225 0222]

In-side OUT of Lokayukta [Anti-Corruption Bureau of Karnataka] ... :The Great Conspiracies, Corruption, Frauds, Omissions & Commissions "Of Lokayukta, By Lokayukta & For Lokayukta" 
 ...How Rs. 17 Lakh Billion Scandal of 867 Judges spread all over the Indian Courts from Supreme Court .is being hushed-up since 1999 by Lokayukta"

1) AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 853

Short Note : Proceedings in court --Fraud by litigant - withholding of vital document relevant to litigation --It is Fraud on court --Guilty party is thrown out of court at any stage -- Litigant obtaining preliminary decree --Decree is vitiated by Fraud .

" Fraud avoids all acts , ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non-est. in the eyes of law. Such a Judgment / decree by the first Court or by the highest Court - has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings.."

At Para. 20; This plea could not have been legally ignored by the Commission which needs to be reminded that Authorities be they Constitutional , Statutory or Administrative , ( and particularly those who have to decide lis ) possess the power to recall their judgement or Orders if they are obtained by Fraud as Fraud & Justice never dwell together .(Frau's et jus nunquam cohabitant ) . It has been repeatedly said that Fraud and Deceit defend of excuse no man.(Fraus et dolus namino patri cinary debent ).

" No Judgement of a court , no Order of a Minister , can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by Fraud . Fraud unravels Everything ."

Short Title ( A ) Civil P.C (5 of 1908 ). Sec.151 :--Power to recall its order --Order obtained by practicing fraud --Every Court / Tribunal has power to recall such order .

Para - 14 :- In S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu ( dead ) by L Rs. v. Jagnnath ( dead ) by Lrs., ( 1994 ) 2 SCC 1 ( AIR 1994 SC 853 ) the two Judges Bench of this Court held : " Fraud avoids all acts , ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. Such a Judgment / decree by the first Court or by the highest Court - has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings.."

Para - 15 :- In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres ( India ) Pvt. Ltd.. ( 1996 ) 5 SCC 550: ( 1996 AIR SCW 3281 AIR 1996 SC 2592 ) another two Judges bench, after making reference to a number of earlier decisions rendered by different High Courts in India, stated the legal position thus: "Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practiced upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order."COURT defined the effects of FRAUD in Govt. action or on/in Court & consequently the

High Court (of Karnataka) Directive to Co-operative Society.

Bangalore: Jan 22 (DHNS) The Karnataka High Court today directed the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees' House Building Co-operative Society not to change the nature of a site, which was reserved as civic amenity site for the purpose of construction of a temple, in Judicial Layout on Bellary Road.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice N.K. Jain and Justice K. Bhaktavatsala passed the above order on a public interest litigation filed by Judicial Layout Residents' and Site Holders' Association.

The association has alleged in the petition that the Society was illegally converting the open space reserved for parks, sites reserved for civic amenities, underground drainage, roads in the layout as residential sites in clear violation of the layout plan approved by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The society had formed 2,048 residential sites by utilizing some portion of 193 acres of land allotted to it by the government. The remaining portion was kept for various public purposes. The petitioner alleged that the society had sold more than 500 sites in addition to 2048 sites by illegally converting land reserved for other purpose.

The petitioner also said BDA which as per the law had to take over the control of open space in the layout had failed to discharge its duty. The High Court has also ordered issue of notices of BDA and Yelahanka CMC.

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

Transfer of Property Act, 1882:-  Section 55[6] [b] - Property auctioned to highest bidder- Default by bidder [Skippers] in deposit of consideration even under revised agreement - Matter in Court - Bidder prohibited from inducting any person or creating rights in favour of third parties-Still entering in so sale agreement-Re-entry by DDA-Earlier proceedings noting that Skippers have collected huge amount from purchasers-DDA re-auctioning plot with incomplete building-Certain amount deposited by DDA in Court-Purchasers under agreements in respect of same property-If have statutory charge against interest of vendor in the property-Court attaching properties and bank accounts of Skippers-If charge can be enforced against substituted security-Are the purchasers entitled to claim interest. Held that buyer has a statutory charge on converted security and is also entitled to interest.

HELD:- In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer will have a charge on the seller's interest in the property which is the subject matter of the sale agreement insofar as the purchase money and interest on such amount are concerned, unless the buyer has improperly declined to accept delivery. The charge is available against the seller and all persons claiming under him. The buyer's charge under this Section is a statutory charge and differs from a contractual charge which a buyer may be entitled to claim under a separate contract. [Para - 29]

When the property upon which the charge is created gets converted into another form, the buyer will be entitled to proceed against the substituted security. This is, a general principle of law and Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act is only an example of the said principle. If immovable property is charged and is converted into another property or money, then the charge will fasten on the property or money into which the subject matter of the agreement is converted. [ Para - 30 ]

HELD: - In this case, Skipper entered into a large number of bookings, nearly three times the available units of accommodation and collected monies. This was fraudulent, Skipper, therefore, cannot be allowed to rely upon the term relating to 'contract to the contrary' and escape the payment of interest. Once there is fraud, the inducement for payment by the purchasers cannot be traced to the agreement. In the judgement of this Court dated May 6^th, 1996, this Court has already observed, that interest is payable to both pre 29-01-1991 and post 29-01-1991 purchasers. [ Paras - 36, 37 ]

[ 1 ] On May 6 th , 1996 this Court delivered judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. [P] Ltd. JT 1996 [4] SC 679 = [1996 [4] SCC 622 ]. Thereafter, various other issues regarding the Skipper group of Companies continued to pose serious issues of law and fact. Sometimes, it looked like a maze which could baffle lawyers and courts alike. More claims with regard to Jhandewalan property which was the subject matter of the above case, of persons who claimed to be purchasers of space proposed to be built at Jhandewalan came before us. In addition, claims of similar purchasers or property at Barkhamba Road and also in regard to Technology Park, came before us. In this judgment, we propose to deal with certain issues concerning the Jhandewalan property, which have remained undecided or not decided finally in the earlier orders of this Court.

[ 2 ] In order to understand how these issues arise, it is necessary to go back [A] to the long history of events set out in the above said judgement and [B] to the subsequent events. In Part [C] we shall deal with four issues which have crystallised. In the rest of this judgment Delhi Development Authority is described as DDA and Skipper Construction Company [P] Ltd. is described as Skipper, for convenience.

[ 3 ] In October, 1980, Skipper became the highest bidder for purchase of a plot of land at Jhandewalan in Delhi which was advertised for sale for Rs. 9.82 crores and deposited 25% of the price. The balance was to be deposited as per the tender schedule. Skipper defaulted in spite of seven extensions during January 1981 to April 1982. When proceedings for cancellation of the bid were in the offing, Skipper moved the Court and obtained a stay order on 29-05-1982 and started making representations. DDA appointed a Committee to work out a formula and pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee, Skipper was asked to enter into a revised agreement incorporating fresh terms. Skipper raised objections to these proposals from 1984 till 1987 but finally the agreement was entered into on 11-08-1987. Even before permission to enter was however granted under the revised agreement, skipper started selling the space to be built in the proposed structure and started receiving monies. Though skipper paid the 1st installment much beyond the time, it did not pay the second installment but furnished Bank guarantees which were found to be defective. It however made some token payments to DDA. Subsequently, CWP. 2371/1989 was filed for a direction to DDA to sanction plans/permit construction at its risk. On 19-03-1990, High Court of Delhi permitted construction in accordance with sanctioned plan subject to deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs in two installments and 1.94 crores in one month. DDA filed SLP [C] 6338/90 and 6339/90. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court passed an order in the WP. 2371/89 on 21-12-1990 directing payment of Rs. 8.12 crores approx. in 30 days and stopped further construction w.e.f. 09-01-1991 till payment and stated that in default, the revised agreement dated 11-08-1987 would would stand cancelled and DDA would be entitled to re-enter the plot. Reasons for the order were given on 14-01-1991, Skipper defaulted but approached this Court on 29-01-1991 in SLP [C] 186/91 when this court passed an interim order for deposit of Rs. 2.5 crores in one month and Rs. 2.5 crores before 08-04-1991 and Skipper was expressly prohibited from inducting any person in the building and from creating any rights in favour advertisement on 04-02-1991 and on latter dates in newspapers in Delhi and invited further purchasers to purchase the space in the proposed building. Sales agreements were entered into be certain purchasers inspite of DDA's warning dated 13-02-1991 published in newspapers. SLP [C] 186/91 was dismissed on 25-01-1993.

[ 4 ] DDA re-entered the plot and took physical possession on 10-02-1993 along with the building thereon " free from all encumbrances" in terms of the revised agreement/licence and as provided in the orders of the Delhi High Court dated 21-12-1990 and 14-01-1991. It also "forfeited" the amounts paid till then by Skipper in terms of the revised agreement dated 11-08-1987 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court.

[ 5 ] It is stated in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. [P] Ltd. JT 1996 [4] SC 679 = (1996 (4) SCC 622) That before 29-01-1991 Skipper collected about Rs. 14 crores from various parties to sell space in the proposed building. Even after 29-01-1991, Skipper collected various amounts, about Rs. 11 crores. It appears that the same space was sold to more than one person and monies were collected.

[ 6 ] Skipper filed Suit No. 770/93 against DDA seeking injunction restraining DDA from interfering with its alleged title and possession over the plot and sought a declaration that the re-entry by DDA was illegal and sought a ceclaration that it had validly paid all amounts due to DDA. It obtainde stay of re-auction Against the order dated 09-12-1993, DDAfiled SLP.21000/93.This Court issued suo moto contempt proceedings against Tejwant Singh and his wife (Surinder Kaur), Directors of Skipper. This Court held them guilty of contempt and under Article 129 and Article 142, sentenced them to imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000 each. Attachment orders were passed on: 08-2-1995 as follows:

[ 7 ] DDA invited fresh tenders and sold the plot with the 14th floor structure [incomplete] to M/s Banganga Investments [ Videocon] for Rs. 70 crores. The sale was accepted with permission of Court and the purchaser deposited the consideration with DDA and the land and structure stood transferred to the purchaser.

[ 8 ] This Court felt concerned about the buyers to whom space was sold before 29-01-1991 and later. Claims of those who purchased before 29-01-1991 were estimated to amount Rs. 14 crores. DDA was therefore directed to deposit Rs. 16.75 crores in this Court.

[ 9 ] This Court appointed Justice R. C. Lahoti Commission to go into the claims of purchasers before 29-01-1991 and a report dated 02-02-1996 was submitted by that committee. A sum of Rs. 13.27 crores approx. was paid to about 700 persons.

[ 10 ] This Court appointed Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy to inquire into role of DDA officers and Report was received on 07-07-1995. This Court appointed Justice Saharya Commission to inquire into conduct of Bank officials. A Report was submitted in that connection. The issues arising from the said reports would be taken up later.

[ 11 ] Another order was passed on 06-05-1996 appointing Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy to go into the post 29-01-1991 sales and a Report was submitted. In respect of these purchasers, the principal amount of about Rs. 6.50 crores held due to them has been paid from funds lying in deposit in this court.

[ 12 ] The judgment of this Court in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. [P] Ltd. JT 1996 [4] SC 679 = [1996[4] SCC 622 ] shows that DDA filed a list of properties held by Tejwant Singh, his wife, Surinder Kaur and their sons and daughters which properties, according to them, belonged to these persons. Question arose whether the various companies of which they were directors were merely 'fronts' or "devices" to defraud and defeat the claims of purchasers. Then this Court held that [a] the contemners could not be allowed to enjoy or retain the fruits of contempt; [b] the corporate veil could be lifted and that the Courts was not precluded from treating the priorities as "one entity belonging to Tejwant Singh and family" [c] that the concept of resulting trust laid down in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas JT 1994 [3] SC 583=[1994[5] SCC 54], could be applied, [d] that Article 142 could be applied, in the absence of statutory provision, and that when:

[ 13 ] In the judgment, this Court held [ See para 34] [1] that pre 29-01-1991 purchasers had to be reimbursed in full, "which means that they should also be paid interest at the appropriate rate." [2] Secondly, the post 29-01-1991 purchasers had also to be reimbursed "in full". [3] Ignoring the corporate veil, the property under lease to Israel Embassy at No. 3, Aurangjeb Road, could be sold. [4] For that purpose it would stand attached [if not already attached] and the said property would be sold if Tejwant Singh and wife were not able to deposit Rs. 10 crores by 06-07-1996 [5] attachment of all properties was to continue including the one on properties mentioned in IA. 29/96 filed by DDA. [Skipper failed to make the payment as directed above].

[ 14 ] The above is the long list of events and orders/directions issued in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. [P] Ltd. JT 1996 [4] SC 679=[1996 [4] SCC 622].