Videos on
Fast Glance  
Indian Bureaucrats Ink
Video: Conspiracies Judicial Commentaries
Human Values:
 Great World Leaders
Bureaucrats Mission Successful

CD in News Papers

Canons of Judicial Ethics IAS/IPS/IRS/IFS
Ministers in CBI

Indian Judges'

Hall of Fame     Hall of Shame

Message to Common Man

Corruption in Judiciary:
 Nil or Silenced ?

 867  Corrupt Judges


Lok Ayukta Act
I.P.C.: Sections:  001 to 219
I.P.C.: Sections:  405  to 427

Rs.17 Lakh  Billion Scam  

Lok Ayukta + BDA

Black & White Evidence

  Eagles' Eyes: Persecution  

Our Challenge  

Judges Vs Judges
Live Contempt Case

The Plots-in Brief

The Story - in Brief

The Plotters

History of Corruption in Judiciary

CBI Vs Judiciary

Only Good Judgment


Frauds in Land Acquisition:

Conspiracy of Govt. Fraud Society

Judges' Society Cheating Govt.

Govt. Owes Rs.268 Crores to Farmers

Intelligence Bureau: Land Acquistion

Rs 172 Crores Public Property: Robbery

2600 Fraud Sale Deeds

Frauds on BDA

Cheating to BDA

Fraud Judges Society

Judges Fraud Society

Illegal Actions

Quest for Answers

Society's Bye-laws

2000+ Members List

Photos of Layout

List of Fraud judgments

Contempt of their very Fraud Judgments;  Staying of Legal Govt. Dues

Skeletons in Court

Supreme Court
SLP No.12153 of 2000

High Court of Karnataka
W.P. No. 15101 of 2001

High Court of Karnataka 
 Live Contempt Case:
Judges Vs Judges: CCC No.87 0f 2004

WP No.40994 of 2002

Demolish Sites

Sensitive Documents

ILR 1995 Kar 3139

SLP No.12153 of 2000

W.P. No. 15101 of 2001

WP No.40994 of 2002

Downloaded Sites

FNJPC:  Judges R not Employees

Index to Documents


and Much More inside


  The Plots The Story in brief. The Plotters  

"The fathers did not desire to grant the judges non-forfeitable life tenure, thereby placing the judiciary wholly beyond the sovereign power of the people." [008.09]

The Present Case: 1,000 Judges  are Members of a Housing Society meant for Karnataka Government Employees   
[State Police & CBI both have concurrent Powers], as they have abused Their Judicial Office as Judges + committed Crimes in their personal capacity.

HISTORY - 1991: Judicial officers, judges and magistrates all over the country were in a state of shock
11.546: K. N. Singh J. in the Judicial services Association Case observed: "The incident undermines the dignity of courts in the country. Judicial officers, judges and magistrates all over the county were in a state of shock, they felt insecure and humiliated and it appeared that instead of the rule of law there was Police Raj in Gujarat. A number of Bar associations passed resolutions and went on strike" [(91)A.SC. 2176 at p. 2184]
It is submitted that these distressing facts have led K.N. Singh J. and his brother judges to hold, notwithstanding the law and the constitution, that the Sup. Ct. had power to punish Inspector Sharma and certain other officers for contempt. However, the outrageous conduct of a Police officer gives not jurisdiction to the Sup. Ct. when the constitution and the law have given the Sup. Ct. no such jurisdiction.) [052.01]

PRESENT - 2003: We the People of India including Judicial officers, judges and magistrates (who are not involved in the present Judges'scam) all over the county are in a state of shock:
The judges for a plot of land have violated laws [1C01], such violations were/are been/being legalized using/misusing supreme Court and High Court of Karnataka.

The Present Case: 1,000 Judges  are Members of a Housing Society meant for Karnataka Government Employees   
[State Police & CBI both have concurrent Powers], as they have abused Their Judicial Office as Judges + committed Crimes in their personal capacity.

The PLOTS/FRAUDS committed by the Fraud Judges are explained in THE PLOTS  [A111] and FRAUD JUDGEMENTS  [501.00] by THE PLOTTERS  [A112]

They give and take judgements.[025.13] [027.05]. They violate judgements. [Flash Movie] [023.27 ] They produce evidence for the crimes committed invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court. [040.16][040.02] [040.20][040.21]

The judges on deputation as law secretaries and subordinates thereto are all beneficiaries of these Plots/Fraud Judgements. These law secretaries, we presume are the conduits between Govt. of Karnataka and the judges if not the High Court of Karnataka.[037.01]

High Court of Karnataka which is a "Court of Record" has been made by these plotters as a "Court of Fraud" to the extent the High Court has approved loans to build houses on lands which do not belong to the plotter judges.[016.02] [016.03] [016.01] [015.01]

The financial institutions including LIC and HUDCO, etc. have advanced loans believing it to be true that the layout formed by these plotters is approved by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), of which Mr. S.M. Krishna the present chief minister is in-charge of.[Flash Movie]. Prayers as contained in PIL.WPNo.40994 of 2002 [040.02]

The plotters themselves admit that the Sale Deeds, about 2600 relating to equivalent sites formed in the illegally acquired lands [A107] , the lands grabbed by illegal decrees/orders of courts and encroaching into civic amenity area (about 65 acres) are Registered fraudulantly. This information partly or wholly they admit in WP No.40994 of 2002. [040.02]

Not to leave behind the brother judges of these plotters were & are also present in Vigilance Commission of Karnataka officiating as Commissioner (Lokayukta) Mr. N. Vekatachala [061.00] and his subordinates (may not be all) who are judges on deputation to Lokayukta, almost all are beneficiaries of the Plots are also trying to cover up the matter which evidence is live in high court in WP No. 15101 of 2001.[023.27]

The complete story could be rightly ascertained by or from Chief Justice of India (In-waiting) Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu of Supreme Court who has built a house on a plot in disputed layout / lands which are not converted from agricultural to residential and to that extent he as a member of the Society has got case filed in Supreme Court, SLP No.12153 of 2000 [026.22]. The details of the case and him are covered elsewhere in the story.

"Why are the judges placed in this privileged position, as it were and why is this special immunity given to them ?" [008.09]

VVIPs of Judiciary of India - Members of Fraud Housing Society. [014.16]:
Judges of Supreme Court & High Court bequeathed / fore-gone Constitutional Privileges & immunities. This Society had procured a Judgment in 1995 by High Court of Karnataka. At paragraph 31 Court observed thus: By no stretch of imagination can include the Judges of High Court or Supreme Court ( Sitting, Transferred, Retired). Para 31 of ILR 1995 KAR 3139 at page 3183. [027.05].

Judges of Sub-ordinate Courts of India have formed an Association called All India Judicial Officers Association. Against the Petition of this Association , Supreme Court in its reported Judgment nick-named as All India Judges Association Case - AIR 1992 SC 165 and AIR 1993 SC 2493 at page 2510 observed thus :

"Under the Constitution, the judiciary is above the administrative executive and any attempt to place it on par with the executive has to be abandoned.""The judges are not employees and judicial service is not service in the sense of employment. As members of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They are holders of public offices in the same way as the Members of the Council of Ministers and the Members of the Legislature." [ 037.02 ] [055.02] [055.01]. For more details visit the Official Web Site of First National Judicial Pay Commission at . Off-Internet you can view on our CD full-site of FNJPC [055]

The commission consists of 3 Retired Judges viz., 1. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty , Chairman , Former Judge, Supreme Court of India 2. Justice P. K. Bahri (Retd.) Member& 3. Justice A.B. Murgod (Retd.) Member Secretary. [055]
Out of whom 1st & 3rd are also Members of the Fraud Housing Society. Be it so.

However about 500 to 1000 Judges of Sub-ordinate Courts in Karnataka continued to claim themselves as Employees of Government of Karnataka by continuing to be Members of the Fraud Housing Society. Worst or Good is that High Court of Karnataka in 1995 allowed them to claim so! High Court Judges also claimed such privilege. [027.10s] [027.16s] [Fraud Housing Society-Society Byelaws] [027.05 ].

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

"Question arose whether the various companies of which they were directors were merely 'fronts' or "devices" to defraud and defeat the claims of purchasers. Then this Court held that [a] the contemners could not be allowed to enjoy or retain the fruits of contempt; [b] the corporate veil could be lifted and that the Courts was not precluded from treating the priorities as "one entity belonging to Tejwant Singh and family" [c] that the concept of resulting trust laid down in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas JT 1994 [3] SC 583=[1994[5] SCC 54], could be applied, [d] that Article 142 could be applied, in the absence of statutory provision, and that when:
"Someone has acquired property by defrauding the people and if it is from that the person defrauded should be restored to the position in which they would have been but for the said fraud, the Court can make all necessary orders." Quote from paragraph 12 of [020.01]

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


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


Transfer of Property Act, 1882:-  Section 55(6)(b) - Property auctioned to highest bidder- Default by bidder (Skippers) in deposit of consideration even under revised agreement - Matter in Court - Bidder prohibited from inducting any person or creating rights in favour of third parties-Still entering in so sale agreement-Re-entry by DDA-Earlier proceedings noting that Skippers have collected huge amount from purchasers-DDA re-auctioning plot with incomplete building-Certain amount deposited by DDA in Court-Purchasers under agreements in respect of same property-If have statutory charge against interest of vendor in the property-Court attaching properties and bank accounts of Skippers-If charge can be enforced against substituted security-Are the purchasers entitled to claim interest. Held that buyer has a statutory charge on converted security and is also entitled to interest. [020.01]

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

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


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

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

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

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


Proceed to The Plots

  Home The Plots The Plotters Fraud Judgements