Affidavit I am uneducated My 14 years research and actual experience with100% evidences

To: mansukhani48@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: Notice: LAST & FINAL REPLY FROM KK BOSE.

CC: boselaw@hotmail.com

July 14, 2006 (By email: mansukhani48@yahoo.com),

Dear Mr. Dayal Mansukhani,

Reference is made to your notice dated 10 July 2006
SCB original cheques, we have filed application to the court to bring the file from the archives and get us the original cheques and till date the file has not come to the judge.
In respect to your Bombay cases, I had handed over all the original cheques to the Bombay lawyer

MRS. VANDANA D. JAISINGH ADVOCATE & NOTARY She had at that time informed me that all the cases were time barred as per the laws applicable in India.

May stop using your language of threat against me and my firm, and

You will not send any more mail to me,
nor your advisors will send, and any mail coming from you or your advisors will go to the junk mail.

With Best Regards,

Bose.

Boselaw

2. 
   Last but not the least- with the great support and enthusiasm instilled in me by the Human Rights’ activists in Mumbai, I have made up my mind and decided to return to Dubai. I am not scared about arrest or any other actions. After depositing the amount and coming with clean hands, it would be definitely expected from the judiciary in Dubai that I must be given a fair hearing. Now since I am out of Dubai and I am in my own country in India, there is no reason for me to place my money in jeopardy. Usually, people who abscond after committing a crime do not return. I am not only returning and facing the trial, but I am putting myself at stake by offering to deposit the amount. Thus my person and my finances will be put to stake just for justice and for removing the stigma on me. This gesture would per se convince the judiciary that I am innocent and I should be given justice. The Human Rights group from Mumbai (India) who have given me courage, would also be monitoring the whole case and one or two volunteer lawyers from this group would be accompanying me. One Mr.Sanjeev G.Punalekar, is a Human Rights activist and edits a newspaper named “Civil Liberties”. He has also fought various litigations against Government of India. You may find his name and details by searching internet through www.google.com. He was accompanying me and appearing for me even in Australia. His contact details are furnished here below.
   

IN THE BAR COUNCIL OF U.A.E AT ABU DHABI

Mr. Dayal H. Mansukhani ]

Having his permanent address at ]

19, Malkani Mahal, Dr. A. B. Road, ]

Worli, Mumbai 400 030. ] Petitioner
Versus

1 Dar AL- Adalah ]

Advocates& legal Consultants Al ]

Maktoum Road, 261, Al Qaz Bldg, 4^th floor, ]

Flat # 402 P.O.Box 15878,Dubai -UAE. ]
2 Mr. K.K.Sarachandra Bose Dubai (U.A.E.) ]
] Respondents
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR WORSHIP:-
THE HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF

OF THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

27. 
    I am a Citizen of India having his address at as stated above in the cause title of the petition. The respondents are Legal Practitioners at relevant time engaged by the petitioner. The petitioner is a Businessmen and he was running his business from Dubai, UAE for around 25 years. The petitioner has traded and carried out business in Transportation, Textile trading, Finance etc. the petitioner has financed many individual and organization in Dubai. The petitioner has a good reputation in Dubai trade circle as he is very successful businessman. Though the petitioner has many friends in Dubai business class he has also attracted some enemies due to business competition.
    
28. 
    I am forwarding this complaint to you by way of this complaint regarding legal proceeding to be taken against respondents firm and its local partners on account of serious loss and injury caused to me by Mr. K.K.Sarachandra Bose -a lawyer from respondents No. 1 firm.
    
29. 
    I am enclosing various notices issued to the respondents in support of my present complaint i.e.      A notice issued by me to Mr. K. K. Sarachandra Bose, 2)      A reply received from Mr. K.K. Sarachandra Bose. I repeat and reiterate what has been stated in my notice. I wish to state that Mr. Bose is a lawyer and the final responsibility of his actions is that of your firm and its local partners. If I finally win the damage suit against your firm it will bring disrepute to your firm and its local partners.
    
30. 
    I say that So far I was dealing with Mr. Bose who has made various wrong promises and misrepresentations to me. However the fact remains that the fees were received by Mr. Bose on behalf of respondent No. 1 law firm and Mr. Bose is responsible to me in his capacity as a part of respondent No. 1 law firm.
    
31. 
    I file this complaint for canceling the license to practice; it will should affect both the respondents’ law firm and will not affect Mr. Bose, alone. Respondent No. 2 joined respondent No. 1 firm, the documents speak for themselves. Mr. Bose has been making a number of claims which include a statement that his refusal to hand over documents to me was based upon the decision of senior attorneys from respondent NO. 1 firm. Thus for his own incorrect and wrong and probably ill motivated decisions he is placing the blame 1^st respondent and is bringing disrepute to respondent No. 1.
    
32. 
    I was in Dubai for 25 years. I enjoyed the life over there. I owe a lot to UAE. That is why the whole approach of Mr. Bose hurts me. I am finding it difficult to digest a situation where innocent local partners of legal firm are exposed to losses due to actions of Mr. Bose. I have already suffered when I trusted him. Respondent’s local partners have placed much more trust in Mr. Bose; naturally the losses that would suffer are bound to be very high.
    
33. 
    I am confident that if Mr. Bose had previously placed the truth before 1^st respondents the matter would have been solved long back. He has either suppressed the truth or distorted the fact that is why he seems to be defiant while replying to my notice as he is sure that respondent’s No. 1 may not act on my complaint. And the respondent NO. 1 being the partner of respondent No. 2 is jointly and equally liable for action in this matter.
    
34. 
    I am a businessman and not a lawyer. Hence there might have been language defects in my previous communications. However this would not change the substances of my complaint. If some of the sentimental outbursts are ignored, the correspondence would clearly show that:-
    
35. 
    1)      I was in constant touch with Mr. Bose. However instead of giving specific reply, he was always giving me evasive answers.
    

3)      There was no problem about prompt payments made to him.

4)      I always dealt with him and never disturbed the local partners.

5)      Mr. Bose did not inform the facts to me in time. He was negligent and insensitive for the reasons best known to him.

6)      As a client, I could have taken steps to protect my interest by coming over to Dubai. I was in Australia during 2002 to 2006 and I had specifically asked Mr. Bose to advise me whenever my presence was required. Way back in July 03, I wrote to him. As Mr. Bose was hesitant to file criminal complaint against the accountant appointed by the court, I expressed my willingness to complete the job myself. However Mr. Bose discouraged me stating that there was a threat of arrest. This was a lie. As an appeal was filed on my behalf against an adverse order, there was no question of inclusion of my name on the websites of police authorities showing the names of persons against whom there were pending arrest warrants. You may yourself verify this factual position so that it will be known to you that Mr. Bose was intentionally misguiding me.7)      When Mr. Bose misled me, discouraged me from coming to UAE, committed a breach of trust, colluded with my opponent and finally destroyed all my legal cases, he was all along keeping you in the dark.

10 I say that millions of ex-patriates are working in UAE. They have faith in the legal system of UAE. This faith will be shattered if this episode is known to people. This will tarnish the image of the whole country and will bring disrepute to the whole system. In that case your law firm will have to face action in the hands of the authorities of UAE as well.

11 When I was trying to convince Mr. Bose that a case should be filed against the Accountant, he demanded on-account/advance of Dirhams 50,000/-. I pointed out that I am ready to pay the same and would in fact pay more than 1,00,000/- in due course, he simply stopped responding to my pleas to file the case. The respondent NO. 1 was aware and did appreciate that this particular litigation was the outcome of a larger crime. This matter is related to a big fraud that took place in Standard Chartered Bank in Dubai involving million of Dirhams and ruining thousands of lives of innocent businessmen in Dubai. I am attaching herewith a copy of the notice send by me to Standard Chartered bank which is self explanatory.

12 The respondent No. 2 is an Indian citizen who has been in the legal profession in United Arab Emirates for more than two decades. Since last six years he was attending to various legal cases which are associated with my business concerns in Dubai. Previously he was a part of another firm viz. Galadari Associates. When he left the said firm and joined another firm our legal cases were shifted to his new firm of which respondent NO. 1 is a partner. Thus the primary

14. 
    As regards fee structure, I have always readily complied with respondents requests. Various correspondences and emails exchanged between us bear testimony to the fact that on our part there was no lacunae due to which their service to us should have been affected. Unfortunately, confidence placed by us and the co-operation extended by us were not reciprocated by them. Instead, the respondent have indulged into various practices which amount to not only dereliction of duty but also to breach of trust and criminal negligence. We have realized that respondents have absolutely no knowledge about written Arabic and they were fully dependent on paid employees doing this job for them. Hence they had to engage outside employees and this must have created serious communication gaps thereby impairing our legal cases. Therefore while canvassing our client account they have clearly misrepresented to us and have given us tall promises which respondents could not and did not keep up. So long as we were in Dubai till 2002, we were in a position to keep in touch with respondents and exercise some check and control in respect of our cases. However as respondents knew, we left for Australia in the year 2002 and thereafter in the next four years period, we were busy with our business activities in Australia. During this period, we had to fully rely upon respondent’s long distance communications with the belief and confidence that they would take care of our interest. Respondents are aware of the fact that as per law relating to legal profession and code of ethics
    applicable to lawyers, a lawyer is expected to exercise every due diligence even in the absence of his client and to ensure that the litigation does not suffer due to any communication gap. A lawyer is duty bound to properly represent his client and to see that every submission and argument is properly tendered and every correspondence is properly made so as to maximize the chances of success. When a lawyer confronts any difficulty, he is required to specifically and clearly advice his client so that the client can take remedial measures. Secondly, a lawyer is expected to carry out every lawful instruction from the client honestly and truthfully. A lawyer is required to act with ordinary diligence and it is expected of him that he must take timely decision with
    regard to various matters by making optimum use of his own conscience and judgment. A lawyer is also duty bound that he should not defy the client’s
    instructions particularly when such instructions are of material relevance to the evidence in led any case. Whenever respondents sent us any e-mail, we replied the same by return e-mail.  However, they kept us in dark. Even in instances where there were adverse developments, they failed to inform us on the same day.   Only when we contacted them, we were given intimation about the happening.
    
15. 
    Unfortunately, in the litigation relating to Mr. Raj Bernard and of his firm Besco, we find that the litigation was completely mis-handled by respondents. Respondents had acted in a reckless and careless manner and have failed and neglected to protect my interest. A favorable judgment obtained by me was reversed at my back and by taking advantage of various deficiencies at the appellate stage proceedings which occurred only and only because of your criminal negligence and probably your collusion with the opposite party. Mr. Raj owed huge dues to me. Financial irregularities were committed by him and in fact when litigation was going on in my presence, Mr. Raj was evading the same and he did not even participate in the proceedings. The court at Dubai however, went on giving opportunities to him for a long period of 3 ½ years. However, while deciding the litigation in my absence, the matters were extraordinarily expedited which was not even opposed by respondents. They were also aware that this legal case had a background history connected with the episode of Standard Chartered Bank and final outcome of this case was closely linked to every step to be taken by them with regard to my dispute with Standard Chartered Bank. Therefore when a favorable judgment was received by me against Mr. Raj, I was very happy that I would be in a position to take up pending issues against Standard Chartered Bank. However my hopes were shattered. In my absence when Mr. Raj sought to reopen the case, but respondents did not even resist the same properly. Subsequent case filed against me by Mr. Raj succeeded and decree was awarded against me.
    When Mr. Raj attempted to reopen the previous case, the same should have been forcefully opposed. In this connection respondents knew that I had made available to them every evidence with particular reference to the episode relating to Standard Chartered Bank. I had properly kept all my accounts and chronology of all events was available with them personally. It was only a matter of properly explaining the true facts to the
    court of law. I had also entrusted complete and full authority in respondents and empowered them to represent myself any all these litigations so that my presence would not be required. I had furnished to them the fact of all Cheques, correspondences, auditors’ report, previous complaints, and correspondences with Standard Chartered Bank and supplied them with detailed notes made by me in the matter.
    
16. 
    On my personal website all documentary evidence was displayed and respondents were personally aware of the same. They could have referred to any evidence any time, if at all at any particular point of time they found any difficulty. Secondly, I had been communicating with them over email and it was not difficult for them to get in touch with me over email or on phone. Last but not the least, our contract was very much clear wherein respondents were assured a very good return for their work and this incentive per se was sufficient for them to independently conduct the matter in an effective way. Any single payment of their charges in the past was not delayed by me. In addition, fee structure was incentive based so far as respondents were entitled to share of recovery from out of the decree to be obtained. In this background, it was not unusual for me to expect that respondent would fight out litigation vehemently and forcefully by representing my interest properly. Unfortunately, they did not do so. The case was successfully reopened by Mr. Raj. The matter did not stop here. Mr. Raj succeeded in quashing the decree within a short period. In addition a decree was awarded against me.
    
17. 
    This was shocking. The whole
    episode looked like a stage managed drama. For any person with ordinary wisdom it is very difficult to find out as to how reopening of judicial decision was done with such quickness when decision was made in the first place after a very long indulgence given to Mr. Raj. I was in Australia and due to my business problems I was unable to return to Dubai. Taking advantage of this position, various adverse rulings were obtained against me. On my part I expressed myself and spoke out my mind very clearly. With particular reference to the auditors’ report about various transactions. It was necessary for respondents to rely upon such substantial issues such as auditors’ report and ensure that attention is attracted only to genuine issues of substance. They should have ensured that Mr. Raj did not succeed in misleading the court only on technical grounds. I had past business relation with Mr. Raj and the entire gamut of transactions was routed through bank accounts. Every transaction was reflected in bank account and there was hardly any scope for oral submissions. It is a cardinal principle of law that
    written word has more weight than a word of mouth. The documents speak for themselves. When I was absent on the scene and when there was already a ruling from the court of law in my favour, it was their duty to stress the documentary part of evidence properly. This consisted of two parts. Firstly, respondents should have properly invited court’s attention to the documents on record. Secondly, if there was need to bring fresh documents on record, respondents should have obtained leave of
    the court for the same.
    The criminal negligence on respondent’s part assumes importance on account of your omission to take proper benefit of the courts directives of appointing accountant to submit report. When the court appoints its agency/ officer for the purpose of fact finding, both the sides get an equal opportunity to bring proper documents before the court. It was respondent’s duty to submit every piece of paper to the accountant and thereafter see to it that every vital piece of paper is duly incorporated in the financial report submitted by the auditor to the court. Even though I am a layman, I am aware of the practices in the court and about principles of natural justice whereby documents
    and written submissions made by one party are invariably made available to the opposite party. The submission of accountant’s report is not one day’s job. It is a long drawn process wherein both the parties are given due opportunity to examine each
    others documents and arguments and to make further arguments, rejoinder and supplementary submissions. Therefore respondents ought to have properly checked that every document from our side is taken on record. Simultaneously they should have also thoroughly checked the documents tendered by Mr. Raj to ensured that any concocted or manipulated documents are not allowed to be taken on record With regard to documentary evidence, we had an upper hand and there was every likelihood that the opposite side would try to mislead the court by submitting either concocted documents or by tendering incorrect interpretation of evidence. Respondents should have been extremely alert and vigilant on this front. However, they have adopted a very casual and non-serious attitude. While the opposite side and its lawyers were fighting litigation with vehemence and vigor and were not leaving any stone unturned to get
    better judgment, respondents have adopted an attitude of complacence. In fact I clearly apprehend that this not an attitude of complacence but an attitude of complicity. Respondents did not defend our interest at all. They failed to point out the lacunae of the opposite side, documentary evidence as well as interpretation of such evidence.
    It is also extremely doubtful whether respondents really submitted documentary evidence that I had furnished to them. Throughout this period they did not even try seriously to involve me in any of the processes. If at all there were any genuine difficulties, they should have got in touch with me. The damages caused to me were known to me only later. When the court pronounced its judgment respondents ought to have raised certain basic
    issues in relation to the accountant’s report. They failed on this front as well. When I took up the issues with them, they tried to defend themselves by stating that they had recorded objections verbally. As a lawyer, respondents are well aware of the fact that in any court proceedings there is always a scope to submit written arguments. Secondly, while on the date of pronouncement of judgment, the heat and anxiety in the court may create difficulties in properly recording the oral argument we fail to understand as to why written arguments were not submitted to the accountant. Secondly, if at all
    written arguments were not accepted at the time of pronouncing judgment and if they really observed various lacunae in the accountant’s report, respondents could have submitted a review application forthwith through which certain written arguments could have been brought on record. When I was totally disillusioned about the role played by the accountant, I insisted that there is something fishy about the role and insisted initiation of proceedings against the accountant. Respondents did not take any steps. I made it clear to respondents that we need to take further steps to repudiate the report of the accountant and to bring out its non-acceptability as evidence before the court of law. When the report very much adversely affected us, there was no option but to challenge the same and to demand action against the accountants if there were any maladies. However for the reasons best known to respondents, they chose to defend the accountants. It is still not clear to me as to how they chose to defend the accountants when the accountant’s report was the basis of our setback in the legal case. Unless and until we legitimately reverse this report, it was not possible for us to reverse the verdict to the court of law. Repudiating the report required that the deficiency in the report should be first highlighted so that fresh evidence and fresh interpretations would be brought on record. Unfortunately, respondents adopted a very dogmatic and negative approach towards my
    suggestion. As I was respondent’s client, they were duty bound to properly consider my suggestion and instructions. If they differed with my suggestions, they ought to have explained the same in writing and given me an option to engage another lawyer. Instead respondent adopted various techniques to evade action against the accountants. This was unbecoming of a lawyer. Already we were in Australia and we had our own business difficulties due to which time at our disposal was too short. We were
    struggling to consolidate our various matters. In this situation, when time was running out, respondents should have stuck to their professional locus and facilitated prompt and quick action in our litigation / dispute. The accountant’s report had many irregularities. The letter from Besco on record acknowledged the receipts of payments.  Bank statements were also on record.   It was an admitted position that in Criminal Proceedings initiated by me, Raj had accepted the debt and has in fact sought lenience by offering to make payment over a period of time.  He had never claimed that any amounts are owed by me.  If these facts were properly explained to the accountant, there was no question of accountant giving any erroneous report. Even in the likely event of any intentional lapses on the part of the accountant, respondent’s timely and vigilant action would have created apprehensions for the Accountant.
    The respondents had not handled the matter with due diligence. Instead they went on tossing back our queries and when we demanded papers and proceedings from them, they did
    not even make the same available. As per laws applicable to lawyers, a lawyer is required to return all proofs and papers to his clients so that the client can seek relief from alternate sources. If a lawyer does not implement or execute his client’s instructions and at the same time holds up papers with him, thereby making it impossible for the client to go to another lawyer as well, it is an offence punishable
    under law. Throughout this period, respondent’s intentions were to stop legal remedies against Mr. Raj on some or the other pretext. Even till recently, when we requested them to make available to us soft copies of the various documents that are available in their computer, they declined our request without satisfactory explanation. It is an admitted position
    that respondents are not having any Arabic knowledge and they are relying on the papers translated from Arabic to English. Therefore in an era of technology, it is ridiculous that they claim non-availability of soft copies of the papers. Since respondents were actively involved in getting papers translated from Arabic to English and from English to Arabic, it would have been readily possible for them to forward soft copies of papers to us. If all soft copies were not available at least all available soft copies should have been given to us with list of those specific papers where soft copies are not available. Even in such cases, hard copies should have been provided to us. They did not provide us with any copies. Instead they went on giving evasive replies and at one point of time stated that we
    should obtain the papers from the court of law. During these communications, when respondents informed us orally that hard copies in Arabic could be collected, we clarified to them that as they had got these papers translated into English, the soft copies could be forwarded to us so that we can properly study the matter and give instructions to the counsel conducting the matter in Australia. We pointed out that they must be having soft copies in your computer. However, they still did not provide us with the soft copies. This non-cooperative attitude on his part has convinced us that the judgment obtained at our back against our interest was obtained by collusion and conspiracy between him and Mr. Raj. Therefore, we have decided to initiate stringent legal action against the respondent.
    
18. 
    The petitioner has not filed any other petition or challenged the orders in any other court of law.
    
19. 
    The delay in taking out this petition be condoned as the petitioner being held up in Australia for his Business purpose and presently residing in India, he could not due to legal knowledge file this petition earlier.
    
20. 
    The petitioner is paying the court fees of DHR.___________ as fixed court fees.
    
21. 
    The petitioner has no alternate and efficacious alternate remedy available and reliefs sought in the present petition will be suffice to do full and final justice between the parties.
    
22. 
    The petitioner submits that there is substantial and crucial issues regarding law are involved in the above matter.
    
23. 
    The petitioner craves leave to refer and rely upon the compilation of documents in support of this petition.
    
24. 
    The petitioner shall rely upon the compilation of documents in support of this case separately.
    
25. 
    The petitioner therefore prays that-
    

6. 
   That after going through the legalities and proprieties in the above matte records and proceedings from the lower court be called for.
   
7. 
   That after going through the records and proceedings in the above matter and hearing the parties this Hon’ble court be pleased to deal with the respondents in accordance with law.
   
8. 
   That any other just and appropriate order as this court thinks fit and proper may be passed.
   
9. 
   That cost of this petition be provided with.
   

Place

IN THE COURT OF FEDRAL SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION IN ABU DHABI

IN

APPEAL NO. OF

PETITION NO. OF

Having his permanent address at ]

19, Malkani Mahal, Dr. A. B. Road, ]

Worli, Mumbai 400 030. ] Petitioner

Auditors & Business Consultants ]

P.O.Box No. 31367, ]

Dubai, U.A.E. ]

Email: info@ harisaudit.com ]
2 Raj Bernard of BESCO ]Resp