Alexander Dimitrief
Fraud committed by Alexander Dimitrief & Bradford Berenson in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of General Electric Company. Brackett Denniston the General Counsel of GE until 31.10.2015 was also part of the fraud.
Fraud committed by Alexander Dimitrief & Bradford Berenson in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of General Electric Company. Brackett Denniston the General Counsel of GE until 31.10.2015 was also part of the fraud.
General Electric Company is a large conglomerate incorporated in the United States.
Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to General Electric Company on 7.3.2012.
Advocate Nanju Ganpathy appeared on 9.5.2012 claiming to represent General Electric Company and continued to appear thereafter.
Brackett Denniston
Affidavits were filed on behalf of General Electric Company through one K Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of General Electric Company were produced.
At Appellant's request, order dated 12.10.2012 directed Nanju Ganpathy to produce authority documents to show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of General Electric Company.
Nanju Ganpathy filed a photocopy of a document self-describing as a Power of Attorney executed by one Alexander Dimitrief on 4.5.2012. This document had a validity of one year.
Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been filed so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi High Court registry shows a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
K Radhakrishnan
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and was invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75]
CM 19683/2012 filed by Appellant on 14.12.2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and did not annex the required authority documents.
A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This vakalatnama was signed by K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory for General Electric Company under a Power of Attorney (POA) dated 4.5.2012 issued in his favour by Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company.
Affidavit of K Radhakrishnan filed on 7.1.2013 producing an extract from the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised on November 6, 2009) containing a Board Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the Board Resolution) which describes and limits the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company.
Bradford Berenson
Nanju Ganpathy filed another vakalatnama for General Electric Company on 16.7.2013. This vakalatnama was allegedly signed by Bradford Berenson on 9.5.2013.
Attached to this vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 was a photocopy of a document self-describing as a power of attorney allegedly executed on 29 April 2013 by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company and apostilled in the United States on 10 May 2013. This was also only valid for one year.
In any event, since the Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 was valid only for one year, it ceased to have legal effect from 30.4.2014 onwards.
Therefore, even without going into the authenticity and legal validity of the authority documents and vakalatnamas filed on behalf of General Electric Company, it is clear that General Electric Company was not legally represented by anyone before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 from 30.4.2014 onwards.
Issues concerning these authority documents and vakalatnamas
2. Were these documents placed on the court record by Nanju Ganpathy genuine or fraudulent?
3. Did K Radhakrishnan impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court and file unauthorized and false affidavits?
4. Was Advocate Nanju Ganpathy authorized to represent and appear for General Electric Company?
Who is K Radhakrishnan?
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company. He has described himself in his affidavits as the company secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited, a fully owned Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company.
Who is Alexander Dimitrief?
Alexander Dimitrief was Vice President, Litigation & Legal Policy of General Electric Company from 9 February 2007 until November 1, 2011 when he was appointed as General Counsel of GE Energy. Alexander Dimitrief has been appointed as General Counsel of General Electric Company with effect from 1.11.2015.
Who is Bradford Berenson.
Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as the Operational Officer for Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric Company on 15 October 2012.
Were the Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson legal and valid in law?
The authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company emanates from Board Resolution dated 26.4.1988 as incorporated in the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised on November 6, 2009).
Under this Board Resolution, both Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had the authority to sign court pleadings and powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company for litigation purposes but they had no authority to further delegate this authority to anyone.
General Electric Company's Board Resolution dated 26.4.1988 stipulates in Paragraph A that certain types of documents/ instruments including court pleadings and powers of attorney can only be signed on behalf of General Electric Company by
(i) corporate officers of the Company who are identified by position as "Authorized Persons";
(ii) by an Operational Officer of the Company where such document pertains to the component or function to which such officer is assigned;
(iii) by a Manager or Acting Manager of the relevant Division or Department of General Electric Company.
Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 sought the following relief:
“1. Summon the records of Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 on the whistle-blower complaints made by the Petitioner and after examining the records and hearing the Respondents, issue a writ of mandamus to Respondent 4 directing that Respondent 7 be disqualified and Respondent Nos. 1, 6 and 7 be black-listed from the Diesel and Electric Locomotive Tenders (Global RFQ No. 2010/ ME (Proj)/ 4/ Marhoura/RFQ and RFQ No. 2010/ Elect. (Dev0 440/1(1)).2. Issue writs of mandamus to Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 directing them to respond to and act upon the said whistle-blower complaints in accordance with law.3. Direct that Respondent No. 2 inquire into the commission of criminal offences (including forgery, bribery and public corruption) arising out of the Petitioner’s whistle-blower complaints and direct prosecution of GE employees and government officials and public servants found involved and complicit.4. Enforce and protect the right to life of the Petitioner and direct that the Petitioner be provided full protection and safety and be immediately relocated to a safe house.5. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper."
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company and Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had no authority to delegate to K Radhakrishnan any authority to execute either court pleadings or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company in relation to Writ Petition Civil No. 1290/2012 filed in the Delhi High Court.
The Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson respectively were therefore illegal and invalid documents and which therefore conferred no authority upon K Radhakrishnan to represent himself as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court.
K Radhakrishnan therefore effectively impersonated as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company and the affidavits filed by him before the Delhi High Court were unauthorized, false and perjurious.
Brackett Denniston (who retired as General Counsel of General Electric Company on 31.10.2015), Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson knowingly participated in a criminal obstruction of justice conspiracy to falsify powers of attorney with intent to enable K Radhakrishna to unlawfully impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in a whistleblower litigation involving complaints and evidence of corruption by General Electric Company. K Radhakrishnan was used to commit a fraud on the Delhi High Court, on the Government of India and on General Electric Company itself. K Radhakrishnan was used to sign and file false and unauthorized affidavits in the Delhi High Court.
Information about this litigation was suppressed by Brackett Denniston, Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson and Jeffrey Eglash, all senior level in-house lawyers for General Electric Company.
Seema Sapra
General Electric Company whistleblower
For a more detailed examination of the documents and to see the documents, please continue to read on.
For a more detailed examination of the documents and to see the documents, please continue to read on.
This note describes how GE effectively evaded the summons issued by the Delhi High Court and how Denniston, Dimitrief and Berenson issued fraudulent authority docs violating GE's own board resolution so that an employee of GE's Indian subsidiary could "impersonate" as General Electric Company's authorized signatory before the Delhi High Court.
This is a very serious matter and a violation of US law and Dimitrief and Berenson should lose their jobs for this and get disbarred. Criminal charges for obstruction of justice would lie. This amounts to fraud and criminal impersonation. It is a fraud on General Electric Company itself. Someone impersonated as General Electric Company's authorized signatory before a court.
A high level executive/ lawyer of GE would otherwise have had to file affidavits before the Delhi High Court.
The GE India employee K Radhakrishnan was used to file false affidavits as part of the cover-up. I guess Dimitrief and Eglash did not want to commit perjury.themselves.
Also, it appears as if my entire litigation was outsourced by GE. The intent was to conceal my litigation records from GE. GE will not have the full court record of this litigation.
This is a very serious matter and a violation of US law and Dimitrief and Berenson should lose their jobs for this and get disbarred. Criminal charges for obstruction of justice would lie. This amounts to fraud and criminal impersonation. It is a fraud on General Electric Company itself. Someone impersonated as General Electric Company's authorized signatory before a court.
A high level executive/ lawyer of GE would otherwise have had to file affidavits before the Delhi High Court.
The GE India employee K Radhakrishnan was used to file false affidavits as part of the cover-up. I guess Dimitrief and Eglash did not want to commit perjury.themselves.
Also, it appears as if my entire litigation was outsourced by GE. The intent was to conceal my litigation records from GE. GE will not have the full court record of this litigation.
Fake Authority Docs issued by
Alexander Dimitrief & Bradford Berenson for General Electric Company. Fraud
committed by Alexander Dimitrief & Bradford Berenson in Delhi High Court
in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding summons to and appearance by
General Electric Company
General Electric Company is a large conglomerate incorporated in the
United States. Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to General Electric
Company on 7.3.2012.
Advocate Nanju Ganpathy appeared on 9.5.2012 claiming to represent
General Electric Company and continued to appear thereafter. Mr Nanju
Ganpathy was at that time and until recently a Partner in the law-firm AZB
& Partners.
Affidavits were filed on behalf of General Electric Company through
one K R Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No authority documents
establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of General Electric
Company were produced.
At Appellant's request, order dated 12.10.2012 directed Nanju Ganpathy
to produce authority documents to show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized
signatory of General Electric Company.
Nanju Ganpathy filed a photocopy of a document self-describing as a Power
of Attorney executed by one Alexander Dimitrief on 4.5.2012. This document
had a validity of one year. A copy of this document was emailed by Nanju
Ganpathy to the petitioner after repeated requests on November 12, 2012.
The petitioner filed CM 18642/2012 on 16 November 2012 pointing out
the defects with this alleged authority document and that this document was
invalid.
Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been filed by Nanju
Ganpathy so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi High Court registry
shows that a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce necessary authority
documents and was invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in
Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75]
CM 19683/2012 was filed by Appellant on 14.12.2012 pointing out that
the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and did not annex the required
authority documents.
A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This vakalatnama was signed by
K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory for General Electric
Company under a Power of Attorney (POA) dated 4.5.2012 issued in his favour
by Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company.
Affidavit of K Radhakrishnan filed on 7.1.2013 producing an extract
from the Board Minutes of General Electric Company containing Board
Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009 and hereinafter
referred to as the Board Resolution) which describes and limits the authority
of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of
General Electric Company.
Petitioner filed CM 522/2013 on 14.1.2013 pointing out that the board
resolution of General Electric Company placed on the court record showed that
the alleged Power of Attorney document was ultra-vires, illegal and invalid.
Nanju Ganpathy filed another vakalatnama for General Electric Company
on 16.7.2013. This vakalatnama was allegedly signed by Bradford Berenson on
9.5.2013.
Attached to this vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 was a photocopy of a
document self-describing as a power of attorney allegedly executed on 29
April 2013 by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company. This
was also only valid for one year.
The petitioner filed CM 10493 of 2013 on 19.7.2013 pointing out that
the new vakalatnama dated 9.5.2013 was also invalid as was the Power of
Attorney allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson dated 29.4.2013.
Since none of the petitioner’s applications on this issue were being heard
or even taken up by the Delhi High Court, and because Nanju Ganpathy
continued to appear for General Electric Company without a valid vakalatnama
and since K Radhakrishnan continued to impersonate as authorized signatory of
General Electric Company, the petitioner was constrained to move another
application on this issue on 21 November 2014 being CM 18969 of 2014. Attached
to this application as Annexure P-6 was a specimen signature of Bradford
Berenson which was completely different from the signature on the alleged
Power of Attorney dated 16.7.2013 and on the alleged vakalatnama dated 9.5.2013.
It is submitted that in any event, since the Power of Attorney dated
29.4.2013 was valid only for one year, it lapsed and ceased to have legal
effect from 29.4.2014 onwards.
Therefore, even without going into the authenticity and legal validity
of the authority documents and vakalatnamas filed on behalf of General
Electric Company, it is clear that General Electric Company was not legally
represented by anyone before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No.
1280/ 2012 from 30.4.2014 onwards.
Issues concerning these authority documents and vakalatnamas
1. Were the Powers of Attorneys dated
4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford
Berenson lawful and valid authority documents whereby K Radhakrishnan was
appointed as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company for the
purpose of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 before the Delhi High Court?
2. Were these documents placed on the
court record by Nanju Ganpathy genuine or fraudulent?
3. Did K Radhakrishnan impersonate as the
authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court
and file unauthorized and false affidavits?
4. Was Advocate Nanju Ganpathy authorized
to represent and appear for General Electric Company?
Who is K Radhakrishnan?
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company. He has
described himself in his affidavits as the company secretary of GE India
Industrial Private Limited, a fully owned Indian subsidiary of General
Electric Company.
Who is Alexander Dimitrief?
Alexander Dimitrief was Vice President, Litigation & Legal Policy
of General Electric Company from 9 February 2007 until November 1, 2011 when
he was appointed as General Counsel of GE Energy. Alexander Dimitrief has
been appointed as General Counsel of General Electric Company with effect
from 1.11.2015.
Who is Bradford Berenson.
Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as the Operational Officer for
Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric Company on 15 October
2012. This was in the same position that Alexander Dimitrief occupied until
November 1, 2011. Curiously, this crucial Operational Officer position at
General Electric Company was not filled for almost a year until 15 October
2012.
Were the Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly
executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson legal and valid in law?
The authority of individuals to sign documents (including court
pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company emanates from Board
Resolution No. 10855 (last revised on November 6, 2009). as incorporated in
the Board Minutes of General Electric Company.
Under this Board Resolution, both Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford
Berenson had the authority to sign court pleadings and powers of attorney on
behalf of General Electric Company for litigation purposes but they had no
authority to further delegate this authority to anyone.
This Board Resolution is reproduced hereinafter enclosed in a separate
table. The language of the Power of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 allegedly
executed by Alexander Dimitrief and the Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013
allegedly executed by Bradford Berenson is also reproduced hereinafter
enclosed in separate tables.
General Electric Company's Board Resolution No. 10855 stipulates
in Paragraph A that certain types of documents/ instruments including court
pleadings and powers of attorney can only be signed on behalf of General
Electric Company by
(i) Corporate Officers of the Company who are identified by position
as "Authorized Persons";
(ii) by an Operational Officer of the Company where such document
pertains to the component or function to which such officer is
assigned;
(iii) by a Manager or Acting Manager of the relevant Division or
Department of General Electric Company.
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company and
Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had no authority to delegate to K
Radhakrishnan the authority to execute either court pleadings or powers of
attorney (or vakalatnamas which are a special form of power of attorney) on
behalf of General Electric Company in relation to Writ Petition Civil No.
1290/2012 filed in the Delhi High Court.
The Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 executed by
Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson respectively were therefore illegal
and invalid documents and which therefore conferred no authority upon K
Radhakrishnan to represent himself as the authorized signatory of General
Electric Company before the Delhi High Court.
K Radhakrishnan therefore impersonated as the authorized signatory of
General Electric Company and the affidavits filed by him before the Delhi
High Court were unauthorized, false and perjurious.
Brackett Denniston (who retired as General Counsel of General Electric
Company on 31.10.2015), Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson knowingly
participated in a criminal obstruction of justice conspiracy to falsify fraudulent
and invalid powers of attorney with intent to enable K Radhakrishna to
unlawfully impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric
Company before the Delhi High Court in a whistleblower litigation involving
complaints and evidence of corruption by General Electric Company. K
Radhakrishnan was used to commit a fraud on the Delhi High Court, on the
Government of India and on General Electric Company itself. K Radhakrishnan
was used to sign and file false and unauthorized affidavits in the Delhi High
Court.
Information about this litigation was suppressed by Brackett
Denniston, Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson and Jeffrey Eglash, all
senior level in-house lawyers for General Electric Company.
|
EXTRACTS FROM MINUTES OF
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
April 26, 1988
(Revised March 9, 2007)
(Revised November 6, 2009)
10855 EXECUTION
OF CONTRACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS
The
Chairman reminded the Board that the resolution dealing with the execution of
contracts and other instruments on behalf of the company had last been
reviewed and revised by the Board in June, 1985, at which time the resolution
had been modified to reflect changes in the Company’s organization ad to
change its form to make periodic organization updatings unnecessary under
ordinary circumstances.
The Chairman noted that the
principal purpose of this resolution is to indicate to persons outside the
Company the individuals within the Company who have authority to sign various
documents.
In view of the Board’s determination
to limit the individuals elected as officers of the Company (and authorize
the Chairman of the Board to appoint and remove persons as non-corporate
Operational Officers), he indicated that it would be advisable to consider
revising and clarifying this resolution to take account of these
clarifications and related matters.
The Chairman pointed out that, like
the existing resolution, the proposed resolution would not confer any
authority to approve transactions underlying the documents to be signed over
and above that which is possessed by the signer either by virtue of the
powers inherent in that individual’s position with the Company or by virtue
of a delegation of authority to that individual by the Board of Directors or
higher management.
Following discussion, it was
RESOLVED, that
“(A) Any contract, lease, license, assignment, bond or other
obligation, conveyance, power of attorney, guarantee, proxy, court pleading,
release, tax return, and related documents, or other instruments may be
executed on behalf of this Company by the Chairman of the Board, a Vice
Chairman of the Board, an Executive Vice President, a Senior Vice President,
a Vice President reporting directly to the Chairman or a Vice Chairman of the
Board, the Comptroller, the Treasurer, the Secretary or any Vice President
who is a corporate staff officer of the Company, all of the above-named
individuals being hereinafter called “Authorized Persons”.
In addition to the foregoing, any
Operational Officer may sign any instrument of the type described in this
Paragraph (A) which relates to the component or function to which such
Operational Officer is assigned, and any Manager, or formally designated
Acting Manager, of any Division or Department level organization component
may sign any such instrument which relates to that component. Each
Operational Officer and each such Manager or Acting Manager is authorized to
delegate to others, authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the types
of contracts or other instruments which relate to the function or component
to which such Operational Officer, Manager or Acting Manager is assigned
which are of the same types as the contracts and other instruments listed in
Paragraph (C) below.
(B) The
Chairman of the Board and each of the Vice Chairmen of the Board is
authorized to delegate to others authority to execute contracts and other
instruments on behalf of the Company as he considers necessary and in the
best interest of the Company.
(C) Each
Authorized Person is hereby authorized to delegate to others authority to
execute on behalf of the Company the following types of contracts and other
instruments which relate to the function or component for which such
Authorized Person is responsible:
1. Sales,
purchase and consignment contracts …
2. Installation,
erection, and service contracts …
3.
Assignments, waivers of lien, releases,
guaranties, mortgages, indentures, credit agreements …
4.
Contracts, leases, deeds, or other
instruments relating to real property …
5.
Powers of Attorney authorizing
agents and attorneys to acquire and dispose of motor vehicles …
6.
Powers of Attorney authorizing
agents and attorneys to transact business of the Company with the U.S.
Customs Service and with customs authorities in other countries.
(D)
The Senior Vice President-Finance and
the Vice President and Treasurer are each severally authorized to delegate to
others authority to execute on behalf of the Company the following types of
instruments, and in connection therewith to establish, as appropriate,
Company-wide procedures:
1.
Agreements or other instruments
relating to (a) investment of funds of the Company …
2.
Checks, drafts, other payment
authorizations and notes payable of the Company …
3.
Guarantees of indebtedness of
foreign or domestic affiliates of the Company …
E)
The Senior Vice President-Finance
and the Vice President and Comptroller are each severally authorized to
delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the
following types of contracts and other instruments:
1. Federal,
State or local tax returns …
2.
Reports of collections from
employees and taxes due from the Company …
3.
Applications, claims, surrender
and other forms in connection with the General Electric Supplemental Life
Insurance Program
4.
Annual, financial and other
reports required of the Administrator …
5.
Such certifications, invoices,
reports, releases and other instruments as are necessary to conform to
requirements of the United States Government …
(F)
The General Counsel is authorized to
delegate to others authority to execute on behalf of the Company, the
following types of instruments:
1.
Licences, contracts, assignments,
releases, court pleadings and other instruments relating to inventions and
technology and to patent, trademark and copyright matters.
2.
Petitions, powers of attorney,
authorizations, verifications, nominations of representatives, declarations,
and other instruments relating to proceedings in the Patent, Trademark
Registration or Copyright Offices servicing any country or region of the
world, or to related appeal proceedings, or relating to maintenance and
defense of the resulting industrial property rights, assignment of rights to
apply for and acquire patents and trademark registrations, evidence of such
assignments, requests for the registration of patents as available for
licencing, reports of inventions and petitions for waiver of patent rights to
any department or agency of the United States Government and assignments,
licenses and other instruments confirmatory of Government rights in patents
and inventions.
(G)
Any contract, lease, deed or other instrument relating to real property or to
any improvements located or to be located thereon may be executed on behalf
of this Company by any of the following of the Global Asset Management
division of GE Capital Real Estate: the Senior Vice President, Global Asset
Management, the Managing Director-Corporate Properties and Services
Operation, the Manager-Legal Operation of the Corporate Properties and
Services Operation, or the Director-Corporate Real Estate of the Real Estate
Services Operation.
H)
Any delegations (including
revocations and revisions) as authorized by this Resolution shall be in
writing. Authority delegated pursuant to the last sentence of Paragraph (A)
or pursuant to Paragraphs (B), (C), (D), (E) or (F) above may be redelegated
by the persons to whom such delegations are made who in turn may authorize
further redelegation; provided, however, that no such initial or subsequent
redelegation shall be made except in conformity with the limitations imposed
thereon by the initial delegation plus any restrictions contained in
subsequent redelegations.
(I) The
Secretary, the Associate Corporate Secretary and any Attesting Secretary are
each severally authorized to affix the Corporate Seal to and attest to
contracts and other instruments executed by persons acting pursuant to the
authority granted by Paragraphs (A) or (G) above or pursuant to the authority
delegated in accordance with Paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F) or (H)
above. The Secretary, the Associate Corporate Secretary and any Attesting
Secretary are also each severally authorized to certify as to the provisions
of this Resolution, as to the incumbency of any person in any position within
the Company and as to the terms of any delegation under this Resolution.
(J) Resolution
#10502 dated June 28, 1985 is superseded effective as of April 26, 1988.
|
Reproduced
below is the language of the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by
Alexander Dimitrief. This document is also invalid because it incorrectly
identifies K R Radhakrishnan, the alleged Attorney by wrongly describing him
as son of K R Radhakrishnan and by recording his address incorrectly.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO
ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME WE, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY a company
incorporated under the laws of the state of New York acting through its
principal office at 3135Easton Turnpike, Fairfield, CT 06828, United States
of America, hereinafter referred to as “the Grantor” (which expression shall,
unless repugnant to the subject, meaning or context thereof, be deemed to
include its successors in interest and assigns) SEND GREETINGS
WHEREAS:
A.
The Grantor carries on the business
inter alia of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity,
industrial automation, railway locomotives, motors, aircraft jet engines.
B.
The Grantor has been impleaded as a
party to certain proceedings before the Delhi High Court filed by Ms. Seema
Sapra, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi (“Proceedings”) and
for the purpose of these Proceedings the Grantor is desirous of appointing a
fit and proper person to prosecute and defend and for that purpose to appear
and represent the Grantor before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court
of India as may be necessary, in relation to the Proceedings and does hereby
nominate Mr. K. R. Radhakrishnan (the “Attorney”) to act for the Grantor
which the Attorney has consented to do.
NOW
KNOW YE AND THESE PRESETS WITNESS THAT THE GRANTOR does hereby nominate,
constitute and appoint Mr. Mr. K R Radhakrishnan, aged about 53 years, son of
Mr. K. R. Radhakrishnan and residing at A 202, Emeral Court I, Essel Towers,
MG Road, Gurgaon 122 002, India to be the true and lawful Attorney in its
name and on its behalf to do, perform and execute with respect to the Proceedings
from time to time all or any of the following acts, deeds and things, that is
to say:
1.
With respect to the Proceedings to
appear and represent the Grantor before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme
Court of India as may be necessary for or in connection with the Proceedings,
and also to prefer any appeal or proceeding against any order passed therein,
as instructed by us in writing.
2.
To give in the name and on behalf
of the Grantor such undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents
and statements of responsibility as shall be confirmed and instructed by us
in connection with or incidental to the Proceedings.
3.
To engage Advocate/s, Solicitor/s,
legal Adviser and/or Arbitrators, and to instruct them and to sign, verify,
execute and/or provide the necessary vakalatnama, plaint, written statement,
petitions, affidavits, appeals, applications, pleadings, and evidence in the
Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India, in relation to the
Proceedings, and papers of every description that may be necessary to be
signed, verified and executed by the Grantor or in the name of the Grantor or
on behalf of the Grantor for the purpose of the Proceedings and also to
accept service of summons, notices or other proceedings of the Delhi High
Court and the Supreme Court of India and to act, appear and apply on our
behalf in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
4.
THE GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES that
the Attorney is not authorized to delegate any of his powers hereby conferred
and is not permitted to appoint substitutes.
5.
THE GRANTOR DOES HEREBY UNDERTAKE
to ratify and confirm whatever the Attorney by virtue of this Power of
Attorney may lawfully do or cause to be done in and by virtue of these
presents.
6.
THE GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER DECLARES
that the powers hereby conferred shall not be prejudiced, determined or
otherwise affected by the fact of the Grantor acting either directly or
through another agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes
herein contained.
7.
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY shall supersede
all previously issued powers of attorney in respect of the same subject
matters.
8.
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY is strictly
limited to act as a signatory on behalf of the Grantor, in respect of
documents in relation to the Proceedings, which are specifically pre-approved
in writing by the Grantor in advance. This Power of Attorney does not empower
the Attorney to exercise any discretion on behalf of the Grantor or to do any
other act other than as specified herein.
9.
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY is governed
by, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of India and shall
remain in full force and effect until it is revoked by the Grantor in writing
or lapse of a period of 1 (one) year from the date of its execution, which
ever occurs earlier.
IN
WITNESS THEREOF the Grantor, have hereunto set our hand this 4th
day of May, 2012.
SIGNED
AND DELIVERED
by
General Electric Company)
by
its authorized signatory
Alexander
Dimitrief
|
Reproduced
below is the language of the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Bradford
Berenson in 2013. This document is also invalid because it incorrectly
identifies K R Radhakrishnan as “working as Company Secretary of GE
Industrial India Private Limited” whereas the relevant Company’s name is GE
India Industrial Private Limited. Here K Radhakrishnan’s age is given as 56
years whereas in the Power of Attorney from 2012 his age is shown as 53
years. His affidavits from 2013 filed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012
also mention his age as 53 years.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO
ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME WE, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY a company
incorporated under the laws of the state of New York acting through its
principal office at 3135Easton Turnpike, Fairfield, CT 06828, United States
of America, hereinafter referred to as “the Grantor” (which expression shall,
unless repugnant to the subject, meaning or context thereof, be deemed to
include its successors in interest and assigns) state as follows:
WHEREAS:
A.
The Grantor carries on the business
inter alia of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity,
industrial automation, railway locomotives, motors, aircraft jet engines.
B.
The Grantor is desirous of
appointing a fit and proper person to engage and instruct advocates/counsel
to act, appear and plead on behalf of the Grantor in all legal proceedings by
or against the Grantor in India before all courts, including the High Courts
and the Supreme Court of India, tribunals, judicial and quasi0judicial
authorities in relation to Ms. Seema Sapra d/o Late Sh. A. R. Sapra
(“Proceedings”), and to sign and
verify all pleadings and affirm all affidavits and other requisite documents,
on behalf of the Grantor in all such Proceedings, to file and verify any
documents, as aforesaid and to
generally do all such things as may be required to be done in the conduct of
such Proceedings, and does hereby nominate K. R. Radhakrishnan (hereinafter
referred to as the “Attorney”) to act for the Grantor which the Attorney has
consented to do.
NOW
KNOW YE AND THESE PRESETS WITNESS THAT THE GRANTOR does hereby nominate,
constitute and appoint K R Radhakrishnan, S/o Late Sh. K Ramanurthy, aged
about 56 years, working as Company Secretary of GE Industrial India Private
Limited, having its registered office at 401, 402, 4th Floor,
Aggarwal Millenium Tower, E-1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, to be the true and lawful Attorney in its
name and on its behalf to do, perform and execute with respect to the
Proceedings from time to time all or any of the following acts, deeds and things, that is to say:
1.
With respect to the Proceedings to
appear and represent the Grantor before any court, tribunal, judicial or
quasi-judicial authority in India or before the Bar Council of Delhi and the
Bar Council of India as may be necessary, required or advisable for or in
connection with the Proceedings including to commence any action or other
proceedings in respect thereof and to prosecute or discontinue and also to
prefer any appeal or proceeding against any order passed therein, as
instructed by Grantor in writing.
2.
To give in the name and on behalf
of the Grantor such undertakings, representations, confirmations, consents
and statements of responsibility as shall be instructed by Grantor in
connection with or incidental to the Proceedings.
3.
To engage Advocate/s, Solicitor/s,
legal Adviser/s and/or Arbitrator/s, and to remove him or them and to appoint
in their place other Advocate/s, Solicitor/s, Legal Adviser/s and/or
Arbitrator/s as the Attorney shall deem fit, and to instruct them and to
sign, verify, execute and/or provide the necessary vakalatnama, plaint,
written statement, petitions, affidavits, appeals, applications, pleadings,
and evidence in any court, tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial authority in
India or in the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India, in
relation to the Proceedings, and papers of every description that may be
necessary to be signed, verified and executed by the Grantor or in the name
of the Grantor or on behalf of the Grantor for the purpose of the Proceedings
and also to accept service of summons, notices or other proceedings of any
court, tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial authority in India or the Bar
Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of India and to act, appear and apply on
Grantor’s behalf in any court, tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial authority
in India or the Bar Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of India.
4.
THE GRANTOR HEREBY DECLARES that
the Attorney is not authorized to delegate any of her powers hereby conferred
and is not permitted to appoint substitutes.
5.
THE GRANTOR DOES HEREBY UNDERTAKE
to ratify and confirm whatever the Attorney by virtue of this Power of
Attorney may lawfully do or cause to be done in and by virtue of these
presents.
6.
THE GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER DECLARES
that the powers hereby conferred shall not be prejudiced, determined or
otherwise affected by the fact of the Grantor acting either directly or
through another agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes
herein contained.
7.
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY shall
supersede all previously issued powers of attorney in respect of the same
subject matters.
8.
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY shall remain
in full force and effect until it is revoked by the Grantor in writing or
lapse of a period of 1 (one) year from the date of its execution, whichever
occurs earlier.
IN
WITNESS THEREOF the Grantor, have hereunto set our hand this 29th day of
April, 2013.
SIGNED
AND DELIVERED
by
General Electric Company)
by
its authorized signatory
Bradford
A. Berenson
|
Both
these alleged Powers of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief
and Bradford Berenson have a curious clause. The Alexander Dimitrief Power of
Attorney states:
“6. THE GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER DECLARES that
the powers hereby conferred shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise
affected by the fact of the Grantor acting either directly or through another
agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained.’
A
similar clause exists in the Bradford Berenson Power of Attorney. These
clauses essentially provide that the instructions to the alleged attorney K R
Radhakrishnan need not directly emanate from General Electric Company but
might come via any number of layers of unnamed, unidentified and undisclosed
intermediaries including other agents or attorneys. Thus these alleged powers
of attorney also fail to provide or establish a direct link between K R
Radhakrishnan and General Electric Company. Therefore, not only does K R
Radhakrishnan have no direct knowledge of the facts involving General
Electric Company, the actual source of his knowledge is also not General
Electric but one or more layers of unknown intermediaries. These Powers of
Attorney were therefore nothing but a device to create several degrees of
separation and distance between Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and General
Electric Company and between General Electric Company and its alleged
attorney K R Radhakrishnan.
The
above facts raise several issues. K R Radhakrishnan impersonated as the
authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court,
The Powers of Attorney allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford
Berenson produced before the Delhi High Court were invalid, illegal and
fraudulent. The three vakalatnamas produced for General Electric Company were
invalid, illegal and fraudulent. Mr Nanju Ganpathy and other lawyers who
appeared for General Electric Company in this matter at different times
(including Mr Rajiv Nayar, Mr Rakesh Tiku, Mr Manpreet Lamba, Mr Kartik
Yadav) all appeared without authorization. All affidavits filed in this
matter through Mr K R Radhakrishnan purporting to be on behalf of General
Electric Company were unauthorized, false, perjurious, hearsay and
inadmissible.
In
addition, these facts also raise the following important question of law:
Can
a company like General Electric Company, one of the largest and richest
corporations in the world, avoid appearing before an Indian court like the
Delhi High Court in a writ petition seeking writs directing the Indian
Government to act on complaints and evidence of corruption against the
Company in a high value tender matter, by appointing an outsider as
arms-length power of attorney to represent it in the proceedings. Does this
not amount to avoiding the summons of the Court?
The
Petitioner has accessed other Powers of Attorney or authority documents for
General Electric Company publicly available on the internet and in all those
documents, the document is duly attested by an attesting secretary of General
Electric Company. No such attestation by an attesting secretary of General
Electric Company appears on the alleged Powers of Attorney allegedly executed
by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson and produced before the Delhi
High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
All
the applications filed by the petitioner setting out the above objections to
the authority documents for K R Radhakrishnan and Advocate Nanju Ganpathy
were simply adjourned by several Delhi High Court Benches and were never
considered or taken up for hearing in the three years during which Writ
Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 remained pending in the Delhi High Court.
|