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

OF THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

36. 
    The petitioner is a Citizen of India having his address at as stated above in the cause title of the petition. The respondent is authorized auditor and the Dubai court accepts his auditing report. The respondent No. 2 is a manager of BESCO a registered company under the UAE law. 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.
    
37. 
    The petitioner has financed respondents NO. 2 around 3 million Dhr. For different years, this finance was spread upto 2 years. All this financial transaction was by cheque payment. The respondent NO. 2 for discharging his legal debt issued some post dated Cheques in favour of the petitioner, a few Cheques were drawn on Standard Chartered Bank to which I have separately sued. Interestingly some Cheques were having endorsement from the said Bank “we guarantee that this cheque is good for payment on 15.10.98” believing the endorsement the petitioner agreed to accept post dated Cheques. Hereto annexed and Marked Exhibit A collectively are the cheques issued by the 4^th respondent MR. Raj Bernard to discharge his legal debt.
    
38. 
    To the shock and surprise of the petitioner all these cheque were dishonored by the Standard Chartered Bank. Initially the bank gave vague reasons for dishonoring the cheque but subsequently they stated in their memo that there are alteration in the Cheques as far as date are concerned. The petitioner challenged that contention the matter was highly contested and ultimately it was held that the bank officers were responsible for the alteration if any and they have endorsed their signature at the place of alteration. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit B is the copy of the Forensic Lab report issued dated ___________.
    
39. 
    The petitioner submits that once it was made clear that I was not responsible for the alteration in the cheques I should be given the cheque amount but surprisingly the bank and public prosecutor conspiring with all the above respondents delayed that matter and when ultimately when the cheque was handed over to me the time for presenting the same lapsed. This way the public prosecutor and Dubai police is also responsible for causing delay under the guise of investigation. I reserve my right to sue them as and when situation permits. Thereafter the petitioner went to the central bank for help – UAE. They could not help me down below is their reply. Then he also went to London for justice, but there also the bank of ombudsman took my case but after one month – sent negative response, England bank has big power – and big relations. uk – bank of ombudsman could not help me and asked me to go to Dubai so the petitioner went to Dubai central bank and also to the Indian consulate, in Dubai. But they also could do nothing to help an Indian in Dubai. i am attaching all these evidences.
    

40. 
    The brief facts about the lis between the petitioner and the respondents is as under:-
    
41. 
    The petitioner went to Dubai in around may 1977. he is a businessman his business in Dubai includes-Transportation, Cars selling and buying, Man Power supply- Whole sale Textile, and Financial support/Investor. The respondent No. 2 BESCO- the respondent no. 2 It’s a Dubai Govt. Undertaking run by Dubai Labor Ministry. One Al Mullah is the Owner, who is in Business of Supplying Manpower from Asia and particularly from India. The Dubai Dry Dock is another such company managed by the Dubai Government. One RAJ BERNARD present respondent NO. 2 is an Employee of BESCO holding a Managerial Capacity in BESCO. The petitioner financed BESCO since 1995 to 1997 Dec. I financed around 3 Million Dhm. To this company. Out of which I recovered around 1.8 Million and the outstanding is around 1.2 Millions. In December 1997 we have entered into New Agreement and BESCO issued me through Mr. Raj Bernard New Cheques for Balance amount. The balance amount was divided into 12 different Cheques, payable in installment.
    
42. 
    To the shock of the petitioner All these 12 Cheques were returned dishonored at different time and period. Besides these 12 Cheques 2 other Cheques were issued drawn at Standard Chartered Bank with Bank guarantee, these two Cheques were also returned dishonored. ( all during the 8 months period) All these Cheques were signed by Mr. Raj Bernard on behalf of BESCO.
    
43. 
    The petitioner initially when the Cheques were returned dishonored warn Mr. Raj Bernard on telephone. Then he filed a criminal case in Feb 1998 in Dubai Court. For 2.23. Lakhs Dhm. The amount being of two Cheques. ( pending this case my other Cheques were also returned dishonored) as the petitioner was made to believe In UAE according to its law the place of issuance consideration is the place of filing of criminal complaint irrespective of the place of issuance of Cheques) Accordingly the petitioner has filed complained in Dubai, Sharjah, and Ajman. Against Mr. Raj Bernard.
    
44. 
    All these cases proceeded simultaneously in different courts.The Dubai Court case concluded in July 1998. The court ordered and directed Mr. Bernard to pay me Cheques amount and he was fined for 2000 Dhm. This money was deposited in court which was afterward on given to petitioner. In sharjah court the court directed the case to be transferred to Dubai court. Similarly the Ajman court also taken similar view.
    
45. 
    In mean time the accused was put in police custody for around 10 days. Finally the Dubai court decided the cases so transferred to it and dismissed the case holding that I should file civil case. The petitioner filed civil case in 2000, being case No. 183 of 2000 the civil court ordered in my favour around 6 lakhs dhr. Aggrieved by this ordered we both went in to appeal. The appellate court dismissed my appeal and allowed the appeal of Mr. Raj Bernard.
    
46. 
    Then subsequently the petitioner went to Supreme Court in 2005 his appeal in Supreme Court was also dismissed. As the the Hon’ble supreme court relied upon the repost of the court appointed accountant who has submitted wrong report for reason know best to him. The petitioner instructed his lawyer Mr. Bose to file civil case who following my instruction transferred theses cases to local lawyer.Thus the petitioner filed civil case against Raj Bernard.
    
47. 
    The petitioner submits that In the mean time out of the two Cheques drawn at Standard Chartered Bank one Cheque returned dishonored, despite Bank assurance to Good Cheques. The Cheques returned with the remark refer to drawer. When I confronted with the officers of the Standard Chartered bank they told me that bank Guarantee Cheques have been discontinued, and there is some fraud in issuance of this Cheques some Bank Officers might be involved. Subsequently the Standard Chartered bank dismissed its employee who has made endorsement on the Cheques.the petitioner again represented the Cheques with the Bank this time the remark was alteration in Cheques. On the third time of my presenting the Cheques the Bank remarked alteration in date.
    
48. 
    The petitioner instructed his lawyer to issue notice to Standard Chartered Bank, he accordingly sent notice on 2/8/98 ( Lawyer All Kaleen ) On 5/8/98 the Standard Chartered Bank filed complaint against the petitioner with Dubai Police regarding Cheques No. 404976 ironically this Cheques was never presented with the Bank)
    
49. 
    The police sent the said Cheques with the Forensic lab Dubai for investigation. Even in this matter thee is no reference to Cheques No. 4049776. The lab submitted the report that the Cheques looks as of 1996, there were three dated on the Cheques put by Mr. Raj Bernard and two Bank officers. The Dubai Police sent the matter to court.The court fined the petitioner 2000 Dhm. The petitioner paid the penalty and demanded the Cheques back.
    
50. 
    The petitioner submits that Since the Cheques was not returned to me I went to appeal court, the appeal court dismissed my appeal on fine part but directed to return the Cheques to me. Against this order both myself and Mr. Raj Bernard went to Supreme Court where the humble court continued my fine but ordered to return the Cheques back to me. In the mean time the other Cheques being chq No. 4049776 dated Oct 15 1998 matured and I presented the Cheques in Mashreq Bank, surprisingly the Standard Chartered bank without returning the Cheques to my Banker sent the Cheques to Dubai Police, which was informed to me by Mashrewq Bank. The Dubai Police ordered me o furnish bail Bond. And Cheques was sent to Forensic Lab. In Feb 1999 the Forensic lab sent its report that there is no illegal alteration on the said Cheques. The public prosecutor again sent the said Cheques for reexamination to the laboratory. The second report of the Forensic lab again concluded that thee is no illegal alteration on the Cheques. The public prosecutor directed the police to drop the case against me and return the Cheques to me. The Cheques was returned to me on 28/4/1999. I presented the Cheques with the Banker on 29/4/99 the same returned dishonored on the ground that the cheque was out of limitation. Thereafter I went to London before the Banking Ombudsman of Standard Chartered bank. I registered the complaint in around 2000 Sept. in Oct 2000 the Ombudsman rejected my complaint saying they do not have jurisdiction over the Dubai Bank. I have not filed any legal proceedings for the recovery of the cheque amount. In Jan 1999 Mr. Raj Bernard filed one case against me for recovery of 1 Million Dhm. The court ordered Mr. Raj Bernard to submit account with the court. He could not submit the account for nearly two years and as such the case was dismissed with costs. Raj Bernard went to appeal against the dismissal order, the appeal court appointed 3rd auditor for taking account, incidentally I was also in Dubai during that period so I requested my lawyer to produce account from my side to the auditor, I also personally visited the office of the auditor but he did not entertain me saying he do not have time. Since Aug 2002 I did not went to Dubai again. The appeal was allowed and court directed me to pay Mr. Raj Bernard 1.1 Million Dhm. My lawyer could not produce counter account form my side. As the audit done by the courts auditor was incorrect I directed my lawyer to file case against the auditor for submitting wrong account/audit. My lawyer did not file the case nor did he return me the case papers so I could file a case personally. There are many email correspondence between me and my lawyer. I did not pay the 1.1 million and went to appeal in Supreme Court, the appeal was dismissed.
    
51. 
    The petitioner have already issued appropriate notices not only to the court appointed accountant the respondent NO. 1 who is also an culprit in the matter for not submitting the correct and unbiased report but also to my own legal advisor. I have also addressed appropriate communications to your previous local partner and I shall be marking a copy of the same to his new partner. It would be petitioners endeavour before the court of law to establish that the court -appointed accountant acted in a manner prejudicial to justice and he was negligent and prejudiced in his whole approach. The errors made be him in analysing the data are enormous. The petitioner submits that the accountant’s report is based on not only inadequate information but also incorrect information supplied by my lawyer. Legally, this is treated as perjury and contempt of court. Whatever may be the reasons for the accountant to give adverse report against the petitioner, the consequence of reopening of cases would have to be suffered by the respondents not only in terms of legal cases but also in terms of penal actions and punishments from courts of law. It is already on record that in criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the respondents NO. 2 officer MR. Raj Bernard has admitted his liability before the court of law in Dubai, Sharjah and Ajman and he was making mainly two pleas viz. i) he needed time to settle, ii) he wanted me to resort to civil remedy. The above two statements from him are part of records and accountant’s report in any manner will not erase the past records. Maybe because the petitioner was abroad and because of communication gap or maybe because of errors on the part of petitioners previous lawyer, a holistic picture was not available to the court of law. However, if now the petitioner bring these facts on record and at the same time offer to deposit the amount, the chances of getting cases reopened are bright.
    
52. 
    The petitioner    I say that in the litigation between Besco International and his firm, the resp9ondent No. 1 were appointed as Accountants by the court of law to conduct auditing of various accounts and other documents and to arrive at conclusions about the amounts due between the litigants. On the basis of final report submitted by respondent No. 1 to the Hon’ble court at Dubai, an adverse judgement was passed against petitioner. During the period from February, 2002 to February, 2006 our family was in Australia due to which we were unable to concentrate on final aspects of the report and we were unable to pursue the litigation. Upon petitioners obtaining legal assistance from experts in India as also some of the Non-Government Organizations (NGO) who assist Indians having business overseas, serious irregularities in respondents report were brought to their notice. Hereto annexed and Marked Exhibit C is the copy of the said legal notice.
    
53. 
    As respondent were court appointed accountants, they were required to act in fair and transparent manner with all clear, due diligence expected from the officers of the court. As the future of the litigation heavily depended on their findings, it was crucial for them to exercise utmost care not only in receiving various documents and data but also in properly analyzing the same.
    
54. 
    The petitioner submits that apart from receiving and analyzing data, respondent were required to exercise extraordinary care in matters where they were duty bound to expose and bring on record the correct factual position in the interest of justice.
    
55. 
    The petitioner submits that however to his dismay and shock, it is clearly observed that respondent have conducted the entire job in a casual and non-serious manner. Instead of going into the roots of the problem, they have merely added and subtracted various figures and arrived at some amount for the sake of coming to conclusion.     In the conclusion of the respondents report, incorrect statement about non-availability of proper accounts is found. By their own admission, the appellant company did not have proper records, however, so far as the respondent was concerned, all records including audit reports have been listed. In this situation how such a sweeping statement was falsely included is a matter of doubt.
    
56. 
    The petitioner submits that the onus of proof was with the appellant. Surprisingly the appellant did not co-operate with the respondent NO. 1 and in fact created hurdles. The respondents NO. 1s own conclusion states that the appellant company was not even functional. In contrast to such assertion, the petitioners lawyer in Dubai now informs that the appellant has suddenly become active after judgement and is trying to enforce its rights. Such type of selective persuasion of a case is against the basic rules of justice. If the appellant was not functioning and if he was non-cooperating the respondent No. 1 ought to have arrived at conclusion adverse to the appellant. Instead of doing so, they went on exercising simple mathematical addition and subtraction. In doing so, vital information was contracted or conclusion was overlooked. For example, in the criminal case, involving the very same parties with regard to the cheque of bank guarantee wherein forgery was initially alleged, Mr. Raj Bernard made payment over and above the figures which are reflected in your calculation chart. The fact of such payment also appears in their report. However, no further investigation is made as to what was the reason for making payment if Mr. Raj was disputing the debt. If he was claiming surplus payment to from the petitioner, he should have insisted for refund of this amount as well. It is clear that he was disinterested in referring to the transactions underlying the criminal proceedings only and only because of his apprehensions that he would be opening a pandora’s box. Thus the appellant was not merely dysfunctional, he was intentionally suppressing a number of vital information from respondent and on this ground alone, the should have recommended to the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the pleas of the appellant. There was a letter on letter head of Besco International which is signed by Mr. Raj wherein amounts received by him to the tune of DHM. 1.4 Mio. has been clearly acknowledged. These payments received were in addition to the initial loan amount of DHM. 4, 00,000/- For reasons best known to respondent No. 1 , they ignored this letter which was placed before them. This amount should have been added to the amount of DHM. 4, 00,000/-. Secondly, it was an admitted fact that the transaction between parties was an interest bearing transaction. Nobody was doing charity to each other. Initial loan of DHM. 4, 00,000/- was duly recorded in agreement and tie-up arrangement with the port authorities was also duly documented. Subsequent payments were proved on the basis of two documents viz. entries in the bank accounts showing transfer and the letter from appellants acknowledging the amount. Once our case was proved on these two grounds, and once the appellant failed to demolish these two grounds, there was no option for you but to recognize this amount of Dirh.1.4 Mio. with interest.
    
57. 
    The petitioner say that on this amount of DHM. 1.4 Mio., respondent NO. 1 must have added interest as per the previous contractual rate. Thus for the plain reason that the fact about transactions being interest bearing transaction was an admitted position. It is also admitted that the appellants did not have proper accounts and the respondents had all along co-operated by furnishing every possible piece of paper. The data of respondents in Australia was very clear and this acted as corroborative evidence to the above inferences.   Respondent No. 1 may observe that petitioner are not making any fresh submissions. Unfortunately, respondents act of arriving at patently wrong and incorrect conclusions resulted in misleading the court. The court of law acts on the basis of documents and submissions made by the parties which are appearing before the court. When you drew incorrect and wrong conclusions for the reasons best known to you, the fault is not that of the court of law. The court heavily relied upon respondents report. This was naturally because they were appointed as Accountants by the court of law. The court of law places its trust in them and this made them trustee for justice. However, the petitioner regrets to place on record that they failed and neglected to perform their duties. We suspect that the attitude on respondents part was not that of complacence but of complicity and that they have colluded with the opposite party in a well planned conspiracy to mislead the court of law. The petitioner before things are escalated for the worse, desired that an effort should be made for amicable resolution and he sent legal notice to the respondent but his efforts fail to lay any result and hence this petition.
    
58. 
    It is due to their misbehavior and deliberate omissions that petitioner is placed in this situation. Therefore petitioner shall have to knock the doors of the top authorities of UAE including top government authorities. And this Hon’ble court. The petitioner is fully aware of the fact that considerable time has passed and probably the respondents would take advantage of this fact to highlight on my part. In this connection, petitioner submits that he is capable of adducing sufficient evidence in support of his case to convince the authorities that he was really helpless on account of number of situations beyond his control.
    
59. 
    The petitioner further submits that last but not the least- with the great support and enthusiasm instilled in him by the Human Rights’ activists in Mumbai, he has made up his mind and decided to return to Dubai. He is 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 he must be given a fair hearing. Now since the petitioner is out of Dubai and he is in his own country in India, there is no reason for him to place his money in jeopardy. Usually, people who abscond after committing a crime do not return. Petitioner not only returning and facing the trial, but he is putting his stake by offering to deposit the amount. Thus his person and his finances will be put to stake just for justice and for removing the stigma on him.
    
60. 
    The petitioner submits that Apart from contradictory statements before different courts of law, records with regard to cheques given by Mr. Raj Bernard on behalf of respondent NO. 2 from time to time speak for themselves. It is apparent from the past record that MR. Raj Bernard have not disclosed the entire gamut of transactions to the court. He have indulged in exercise of intentional concealment of facts and therefore once the petitioner bring these facts on record, he would be liable for additional perjury.
    
61. 
    The petitioner wish wish to bring on record that the issues relating to Standard Chartered Bank if being reopened. In fact the petitioner have realized that the issue was too serious and was not his individual issue alone. It contains substancial question of law which if decided would benefit people in general. The petitioner have issued notice to Standard Chartered Bank.  The draft of the notice was provided by top law firm in Mumbai who has advised the petitioner that he must file petition through their associates in London and in Dubai for withdrawal of licence of Standard Chartered Bank for their unholy, biased, arbitrary, unethical role in banking.
    
62. 
    The petitioner further submits that he would also like to add that as per the Indian law, it is permissible for the petitioner to prosecute the respondents even in India since the offences committed by respondents were against an Indian and provisions of Indian Penal Code clearly provide that offences on foreign soil are also covered so long as they are between two Indians. But the petitioner feels that as he has prosper in Dubai in his business he has full faith in Dubai courts, if justice is meted in Dubai many other people would reimpose their faith in UAE law and its courts. As the petitioner feels he is seen as an example of victim of wrong justice system by his nationals in Dubai and if ultimately justice is done in the matter even they would repose faith in UAE judicial system.
    
63. 
    The petitioner submits that he has left Dubai in the year 6th Aug 2002 the petitioner for personal reason has to leave Dubai for Australia and hence he could not prosecute and file the above petition prior in time. The delay caused in filing this petition is therefore liable to be condoned.
    
64. 
    The petitioner is making the above petition praying that the issue involved in the above matter be ordered to reopen. That pending the hearing and final dispute of the parties the Hon’ble court be pleased to direct the respondent to deposit the sum involved in the matter as and by way of security deposit as the respondents are foreigner and there is possibilities of flying the country and go beyond the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the appropriate sum of money in the Court as and by way of security as the courts pleased.
    
65. 
    The petitioner has not filed any other petition or challenged the orders in any other court of law.
    
66. 
    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.
    
67. 
    The petitioner is paying the court fees of DHR.___________ as fixed court fees.
    
68. 
    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.
    
69. 
    The petitioner submits that there is substantial and crucial issues regarding law is involved in the above matter.
    
70. 
    The petitioner craves leave to refer and rely upon the compilation of documents in support of this petition.
    
71. 
    The petitioner therefore prays that-
    

10. 
    That after going through the legalities and proprieties in the above matte records and proceedings from the lower court be called for.
    
11. 
    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 respondent severely in accordance with the law
    
12. 
    That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon’ble court be pleased to stay the order passed in ______________
    
13. 
    That any other just and appropriate order as this court thinks fit and proper may be passed.
    
14. 
    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

1. 
   Standard Chartered Bank ]
   

AL Mankhool Road, ]

P.O. Box 999, Dubai, UAE. ]

2. 
   BESCO International,through ]
   

Suite No. 117, Block A, ]

AJ Attar Centre, Trade Centre Road, ]

POB NO. ___________ Dubai. ]

UAE. ]Respondents.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR WORSHIP :-
THE HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF

OF THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

72. 
    The petitioner is a Citizen of India having his address at as stated above in the cause title of the petition. The respondent NO. 1 is a Scheduled Bank, having its Head Office at United Kingdom. The respondent NO. 2 is a company duly registered under the company law of UAE.
    
73. 
    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.
    
74. 
    The petitioner has financed respondents NO. 2 around 3 million Dhr. For different years, this finance was spread upto 2 years. All this financial transaction was by cheque payment. The respondent NO. 2 for discharging his legal debt issued some post dated Cheques in favour of the petitioner, a few Cheques were drawn on respondent NO. 1 Bank. Interestingly some Cheques were having endorsement from the respondent NO. 1 Bank “we guarantee that this cheque is good for payment on 15.10.98” believing the endorsement the petitioner agreed to accept post dated Cheques. Hereto annexed and Marked Exhibit A and B are the cheque dated __________ and ____________ respectively.
    
75. 
    To the shock and surprise of the petitioner these bank guarantee cheque were dishonored by the respondent NO. 1 Bank. Initially the bank gave vague reasons for dishonoring the cheque but subsequently they stated in their memo that there are alteration in the Cheques as far as date are concerned. The petitioner challenged that contention the matter was highly contested and ultimately it was held that the bank officers were responsible for the alteration if any and they have endorsed their signature at the place of alteration. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit C is the copy of the Forensic Lab report dated ___________.
    
76. 
    The petitioner submits that once it was made clear that I was not responsible for the alteration in the cheques I should be given the cheque amount but surprisingly the bank and public prosecutor delayed that matter and when ultimately when the cheque was handed over to me the time for presenting the same lapsed. This way the public prosecutor and Dubai police is also responsible for causing delay under the guise of investigation. I reserve my right to sue them as and when situation permits.
    
77. 
    The brief facts about the lis between the petitioner and the respondents is as under:-
    

B BESCO- the respondent no. 2 It’s a Dubai Govt. Undertaking run by Dubai Labor Ministry. One Al Mullah is the Owner, who is in Business of Supplying Manpower from Asia and particularly from India.

C Dubai Dry Dock is another such company managed by the Dubai Government.

D One RAJ BERNARD is an Employee of BESCO holding a Managerial Capacity in BESCO.

E I financed BESCO since 1995 to 1997 Dec. I financed around 3 Million Dhm. To this company. Out of which I recovered around 1.8 Million and the outstanding is around 1.2 Millions.

F In December 1997 we have entered into New Agreement and BESCO issued me through Mr. Raj Bernard New Cheques for Balance amount. The balance amount was divided into 12 different Cheques, payable in installment.

G All these 12 Cheques were returned dishonored at different time and period. Besides these 12 Cheques 2 other Cheques were issued drawn at Standard Chartered Bank with Bank guarantee, these two Cheques were also returned dishonored. ( all during the 8 months period)

H All these Cheques were signed by Mr. Raj Bernard on behalf of BESCO.

I initially when the Cheques were returned dishonored I warn Mr. Raj Bernard on telephone.

J I filed a criminal case in Feb 1998 in Dubai Court. For 2.23. Lakhs Dhm. The amount being of two Cheques. ( pending this case my other Cheques were also returned dishonored)

K (I believe In UAE according to its law the place of issuance consideration is the place of filing of criminal complaint irrespective of the place of issuance of Cheques)

L Accordingly I filed complained in Dubai, Sharjah, and Ajman. Against Mr. Raj Bernard.

M All these cases proceeded simultaneously in different courts.

N The Dubai Court case concluded in July 1998. The court ordered and directed Mr. Bernard to pay me Cheques amount and he was fined for 2000 Dhm. This money was deposited in court which was afterward on given to me.

O In sharjah court the court directed the case to be transferred to Dubai court.

P Similarly the Ajman court also taken similar view.

Q In mean time the accused was put in police custody for around 10 days.

R Finally the Dubai court decided the cases so transferred to it and dismissed the case holding that I should file civil case.

S I filed civil case in 2000, being case No. 183 of 2000 the civil court ordered in my favour around 6 lakhs dhr. Aggrieved by this ordered we both went in to appeal.

T The appellate court dismissed my appeal and allowed the appeal of Mr. Raj Bernard.

U I went to Supreme Court in 2005 my appeal in Supreme Court was also dismissed.*

W I instructed my lawyer Mr. Bose to file civil case who following my instruction transferred theses cases to local lawyer.

X Thus I filed civil case against Raj Bernard.*

Y In the mean time out of the two Cheques drawn at Standard Chartered Bank one Cheque returned dishonored, despite Bank assurance to Good Cheques. The Cheques returned with the remark refer to drawer. When I confronted with the officers of the Standard Chartered bank they told me that bank Guarantee Cheques have been discontinued, and there is some fraud in issuance of this Cheques some Bank Officers might be involved.

Z Subsequently the Standard Chartered bank dismissed its employee who has made endorsement on the Cheques.

Za I again represented the Cheques with the Bank this time the remark was alteration in Cheques.

Zb On the third time of my presenting the Cheques the Bank remarked alteration in date.

Zc I instructed my lawyer to issue notice to Standard Chartered Bank, he accordingly sent notice on 2/8/98 ( Lawyer All Kaleen )

Zd On 5/8/98 the Standard Chartered Bank filed complaint against me with Dubai Police regarding Cheques No. 404976 ironically this Cheques was never presented with the Bank)

Ze The police sent the said Cheques with the Forensic lab Dubai for investigation. Even in this matter thee is no reference o Cheques No. 4049776.

Zf The lab submitted the report that the Cheques looks as of 1996, there were three dated on the Cheques put by Mr. Raj Bernard and two Bank officers.

Zg The Dubai Police sent the matter to court.

Zh The court fined me 2000 Dhm. I paid the penalty and demanded the Cheques back.

Zi Since the Cheques was not returned to me I went to appeal court, the appeal court dismissed my appeal on fine part but directed to return the Cheques to me.

Zj Against this order both myself and Mr. Raj Bernard went to Supreme Court where the humble court continued my fine but ordered to return the Cheques back to me.

Zk In the mean time the other Cheques being chq No. 4049776 dated Oct 15 1998 matured and I presented the Cheques in Mashreq Bank, surprisingly the Standard Chartered bank without returning the Cheques to my Banker sent the Cheques to Dubai Police, which was informed to me by Mashrewq Bank.

Zl The Dubai Police ordered me o furnish bail Bond. And Cheques was sent to Forensic Lab.

Zm In Feb 1999 the Forensic lab sent its report that there is no illegal alteration on the said Cheques.

Zn The public prosecutor again sent the said Cheques for reexamination to the laboratory.

Zo The second report of the Forensic lab again concluded that thee is no illegal alteration on the Cheques.

Zp The public prosecutor directed the police to drop the case against me and return the Cheques to me. The Cheques was returned to me on 28/4/1999.

Zq I presented the Cheques with the Banker on 29/4/99 the same returned dishonored on the ground that the cheque was out of limitation.

Zr Thereafter I went to London before the Banking Ombudsman of Standard Chartered bank. I registered the complaint in around 2000 Sept. in Oct 2000 the Ombudsman rejected my complaint saying they do not have jurisdiction over the Dubai Bank.

Zs I have not filed any legal proceedings for the recovery of the cheque amount.

Zt In Jan 1999 Mr. Raj Bernard filed one case against me for recovery of 1 Million Dhm. The court ordered Mr. Raj Bernard to submit account with the court. He could not submit the account for nearly two years and as such the case was dismissed with costs.

Zu Raj Bernard went to appeal against the dismissal order, the appeal court appointed 3rd auditor for taking account, incidentally I was also in Dubai during that period so I requested my lawyer to produce account from my side to the auditor, I also personally visited the office of the auditor but he did not entertain me saying he do not have time.

Zv Since Aug 2002 I did not went to Dubai again.

Zw The appeal was allowed and court directed me to pay Mr. Raj Bernard 1.1 Million Dhm. My lawyer could not produce counter account form my side.

Zx As the audit done by the courts auditor was incorrect I directed my lawyer to file case against the auditor for submitting wrong account/audit.

Zy My lawyer did not file the case nor did he return me the case papers so I could file a case personally.

Zz There are many email correspondence between me and my lawyer.

Zaa I did not pay the 1.1 million and went to appeal in Supreme Court, the appeal was dismissed.

78. 
    I have already issued appropriate notices not only to the court appointed accountant who is also an culprit in the matter for not submitting the correct and unbiased report but also to my own legal advisor. I have also addressed appropriate communications to your previous local partner and I shall be marking a copy of the same to his new partner. It would be petitioners endeavour before the court of law to establish that the court -appointed accountant acted in a manner prejudicial to justice and he was negligent and prejudiced in his whole approach. The errors made be him in analysing the data are enormous. The petitioner submits that the accountant’s report is based on not only inadequate information but also incorrect information supplied by my lawyer. Legally, this is treated as perjury and contempt of court. Whatever may be the reasons for the accountant to give adverse report against the petitioner, the consequence of reopening of cases would have to be suffered by the respondents not only in terms of legal cases but also in terms of penal actions and punishments from courts of law. It is already on record that in criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the respondents NO. 2 officer MR. Raj Bernard has admitted his liability before the court of law in Dubai, Sharjah and Ajman and he was making mainly two pleas viz. i) he needed time to settle, ii) he wanted me to resort to civil remedy. The above two statements from him are part of records and accountant’s report in any manner will not erase the past records. Maybe because the petitioner was abroad and because of communication gap or maybe because of errors on the part of petitioners previous lawyer, a holistic picture was not available to the court of law. However, if now the petitioner bring these facts on record and at the same time offer to deposit the amount, the chances of getting cases reopened are bright. The petitioner feels that he has good case on merits and in the interest of justice this curative petition or as the case may be the revision petition may be allowed and the matter may be remanded for further detail enquiry and investigation to the trial court.
    
79. 
    The petitioner submits that Apart from contradictory statements before different courts of law, records with regard to cheques given by Mr. Raj Bernard on behalf of respondent NO. 2 from time to time speak for themselves. It is apparent from the past record that MR. Raj Bernard have not disclosed the entire gamut of transactions to the court. He have indulged in exercise of intentional concealment of facts and therefore once the petitioner bring these facts on record, he would be liable for additional perjury.
    
80. 
    The petitioner wish wish to bring on record that the issues relating to Standard Chartered Bank if being reopened. In fact the petitioner have realized that the issue was too serious and was not his individual issue alone. It contains substancial question of law which if decided would benefit people in general. The petitioner have issued notice to Standard Chartered Bank.  The draft of the notice was provided by top law firm in Mumbai who has advised the petitioner that he must file petition through their associates in London and in Dubai for withdrawal of licence of Standard Chartered Bank for their unholy, biased, arbitrary, unethical role in banking.
    
81. 
    The petitioner submits that the fact that the whole world is today fighting war on terrorism and the role of banks in criminal activities and money laundering has been focus of not only USA but entire world supporting war on terrorism. The manner in which Standard Chartered Bank acted was so unethical and records are so clear that the issue is bound to be reopened. The fact that these cheques were given by respondent NO. 2 is not disputed at all. The petitioner was not a customer of Standard Chartered Bank at any point of time.
    
82. 
    the petitioner further submits that he would also like to add that as per the Indian law, it is permissible for the petitioner to prosecute the respondents even in India since the offences committed by respondents were against an Indian and provisions of Indian Penal Code clearly provide that offences on foreign soil are also covered so long as they are between two Indians. But the petitioner feels that as he has prosper in dubai in his business he has full faith in Dubai courts, if justice is meted in Dubai many other people would reimpose their faith in UAE law and its courts. As the petitioner feels he is seen as an example of victim of wrong justice system by his nationals in Dubai and if ultimately justice is done in the matter even they would repose faith in UAE judicial system.
    
83. 
    The petitioner is making the above petition praying that the issue involved in the above matter be ordered to reopen. That pending the hearing and final dispute of the parties the Hon’ble court be pleased to direct the respondent to deposit the sum involved in the matter as and by way of security deposit as the respondents are foreigner and there is possibilities of flying the country and go beyond the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the appropriate sum of money in the Court as and by way of security as the courts pleased.
    
84. 
    The petitioner has not filed any other petition or challenged the orders in any other court of law.
    
85. 
    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.
    
86. 
    The petitioner is paying the court fees of DHR.___________ as fixed court fees.
    
87. 
    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.
    
88. 
    The petitioner submits that there is substantial and crucial issues regarding law is involved in the above matter.
    
89. 
    The petitioner craves leave to refer and rely upon the compilation of documents in support of this petition.
    
90. 
    The petitioner therefore prays that-
    

15. 
    That after going through the legalities and proprieties in the above matte records and proceedings from the lower court be called for.
    
16. 
    That after going through the records and proceedings in the above matter and hearing the parties this Hon’ble court be pleased to remand the matter for fresh trail
    
17. 
    That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon’ble court be pleased to stay the order passed in ______________
    
18. 
    That any other just and appropriate order as this court thinks fit and proper may be passed.
    
19. 
    That cost of this petition be provided with.
    

2. 
   This letter proves that Raj had given me PDC cheques worth more than 900,000 and stopped the payment from the next month. Instead of receiving 900,000 I received 38,800 from Dubai drydocks.
   

I even sent legal notices in 2006 and 2008 to Raj Bernard, Dar al Adallah, Haris Accounting and Auditing, Central bank of UAE and Standard chartered bank (UK London) for all the injustice I suffered.

My lawyers email From: "Bose Bose"

I believe that the auditor's report is biased and is one sided. I think that you should file a criminal case against the auditor.

Criminal HARIS & Associates (AUDITORS & BUSINESS CONSULTANTS)

website: www.harisaudit.com

With K K Bose I was in constant touch until 2006, 2007 and in 2008 also I had sent hi notices. In 2005 and before I was in frequent touch with him. Whatever unjust he has done to my cases has not got time barred. I have all his emails. If I file police case then all the cases can be easily re-opened