Tuesday, March 8, 2016

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

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

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 is a Partner in the law-firm AZB & Partners.

                                                                                                  K Radhakrishnan 
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.

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

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.

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 

















No comments:

Post a Comment