"It is also necessary to protect the fair image of the institution of the judiciary from those judges who choose to conduct themselves in a manner as to blur that image." [008.09]

Section 1 of The Judicial Officers Protection Act,1850 provides that No Judge, Magistrate.acting Judicially shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his Judicial Duty. [053.03F ]. Such protection is not available to Fraud Judges.

"In Daya Shankar vs. High Court of Allahabad, 1987 (3) SCC 1, the Supreme Court considered the case of a judicial officer (a Munsif) who had been found copying at a University examination: judge may not depart from the high standard of rectitude expected of a judge even outside the court and he may be subjected to disciplinary action even for acts unconnected with his judicial duties." [008.09]

Hence all acts done by Members of Fraud Housing Society in forming so called Judicial Layout are done voluntarily, knowingly, Willfully. They, the Judges are more responsible to crimes committed by Society than those who happened to be sweepers, peons, clerks etc., working as Employees in Karnataka Judicial Department.

The alleged frauds which are committed by the society are to the maximum extent are approved by the members of this society. The beneficiaries of this society have formed an Association called as JUDICIAL LAYOUT RESIDENTS AND SITE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION admits in its Writ Petition No. 40994 of 2002 and in its  Annexures of the petition. [040.01] index to WP. [040.02 is WP].
The Lokayukta of Karnataka matter of fact had warned to this society that a "search and seizure warrant shall be issued, if the society fails to produce the approved (B.D.A.) layout plan of so called judicial layout. The correspondence between the Lokayukta and the Society; in kind of Annexures; which forms part and parcel of a Writ Petition also confirms that the stories we have written are authentic [023.27]

Top

"Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in the Court and another outside the Court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy"[008.09]

WHAT SUPREME COURT DID IN Similar CASE (of lesser magnitude) OF ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY IN 1996?
Illegally acquired properties - Skipper group of companies connived with DDA officials and made illegitimate gains by defrauding several hundred customers- Construction started on plot for which full payment was not made to DDA and flats sold - Concept of resulting trust and equity - Law of forfeiture of properties as applicable under SAFEMA must extend to cases where properties are illegally acquired by the holders of public office and their spouses and children or other relatives and associates - Properties belonging to Skipper Group to be attached - Purchasers of flats to reimbursed - Directions issued - Constitution of India Article 142 . (Attorney General for India v. Amratial Prajivandas, JT 1994 (3) SC 583 and Attorney general for Hong Kong v. Reid, 1993 (3) WLR 1143 - Affirmed.)[020.02]
Question : WHAT SUPREME COURT DOES in this Fraud Judges Case; will be given here.

"It is not confined to criminal acts or to acts prohibited by law. It is confined to acts which are contrary to law. It is not confined to acts connected with the judicial office. It extends to all activities of a judge, public or private" [008.09]

Top

We expect Supreme Court to "Un-veil Veil of Judiciary" in the same way as how it acted by "Lifting of Corporate Veil" in an ordinary case of a Private Company; cited as: DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. JT 1996 (4) SC 679 = (1996(4) SCC 622).
DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd in 1999 dealt with "Illegally Acquired Property " cited as DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. JT 1999 (10) SC 223

CORPORATE LAW: Lifting the Corporate Veil:
Skipper Construction Co. case Several corporate bodies formed by the members of the family of 'T' - Fraud and illegalities committed by Skipper group of companies - Where the corporate character is employed for the purpose of committing illegality or for defrauding others, the court would ignore the corporate character and will look at the reality behind the corporate veil so as to enable it to pass appropriate orders to do justice between the parties concerned.
The concept of corporate entity was evolved to encourage and promote trade and commerce but not to commit illegalities or to defraud people. Where, therefore, the corporate character is employed for the purpose of committing illegality or for defrauding others, the court would ignore the corporate character and will look at the reality behind the corporate veil so as to enable it to pass appropriate orders to do justice between the parties concerned. The fact that Tejwant Singh and members of his family have created several corporate bodies does not prevent this Court from treating all of them as one entity belonging to and controlled by Tejwant Singh and family if it is found that these corporate bodies are merely cloaks behind which lurks Tejwant Singh and/or members of his family and that the device of incorporation was really a ploy adopted for committing illegalities and/or to defraud people. (Para 28)

"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:
"Someone has acquired property by defrauding the people and if it is from that the person defrauded should be restored to the position in which they would have been but for the said fraud, the Court can make all necessary orders." Quote from paragraph 12 of [020.01]

CONTEMPT OF COURT:
Contempt - Violation of the orders of the Court - In addition to punishing the contemnors, the Court can pass directions to remedy the breach of its orders - Well settled principle, that a contemonor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt, applied - Constitutions of India, Articles 129 and 142. [020.02]

Top

Every Govt. or Public Servant: I.A.S, I.P.S, M.P/M.L.A, who-so-ever-be Ministers including Judges required to act honestly and not to use his position as a government servant for enriching himself or others. Every dishonest act of a government servant, including acts by which he uses his position for enriching himself or others would clearly amount of misbehavior. [008.09]

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. [020.01]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
Definitions.Section 2(c). "public servant" means,-

1. any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory sanctions;
2. any person authorised by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver or conmmissioner appointed by such court;
3. any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by a court of justice or by a competent public authority;
   Section7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Section 8. Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant. Section 9. Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant [032.01]

Top

What did Supreme Court do, in or under similar circumstances:

"Appellate power vested in the Supreme Court. under 136 of the Constitution is not to be confused with ordinary appellate power exercised by appellate Courts and appellate tribunals under specific statutes. As we said earlier, it is plenary power, exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law to meet the pressing demands of justice [vide Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh (AIR 1954 SC 520) {(91) A.SC. at p. 2193.} [052.01]

"There is, therefore, no room for any doubt that this Court has wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and orders passed by any Court or Tribunal in the Country. In addition to the appellate power, the court has special residuary power to entertain appeal against any order of any Court in the country. The Plenary jurisdiction of this court to grant leave and hear appeals against any order of a Court or Tribunal confers power of judicial superintendence over all the Courts and Tribunals in the territory of India including subordinate Courts of Magistrate and District Judge. This Court has, therefore, supervisory jurisdiction over all Courts in India. {(91) A.SC. at p. 2194}. [052.01]

"Judicial Disciplinary Commission has the responsibility to enquire, when a judicial officer- (1) is charged with or convicted of a specific or menial offence; (2) willfully violates statutes, rules, or ethical standards in carrying out his judicial duties; (3) is guilty of conduct unrelated to his judicial duties which prejudices the judicial system; (4) needs correction of conduct which relates to deficiencies in the performance of his judicial duties; or (5) has a physical or mental disability that prevents him from carrying out his responsibilities." [008.09]

Top