Paper trail
How did a not-for-profit company owned 76% by Sonia Gandhi and her son, Rahul, come to own real estate worth hundreds of crores?

N Sundaresha Subramanian & Kavita Chowdhury / New Delhi Nov 10, 2012, 00:19 IST



The grey building on Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi’s Fleet Street, is built like a cuboid. The small parking lot in front is cramped with cars and bikes throughout the day. There is a Metro station coming up across the road. The broad staircase leads to a lobby. At its end, there is a giant-sized black-and-white photograph of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India. His photograph is here because this is Herald House, the headquarters of National Herald, the newspaper Nehru had started in 1937. This seven-storey building is now at the centre of a huge controversy that involves Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, the Congress and sundry others, and was uncovered by Subramanian Swamy, Janata Party president, former Harvard professor, ultra-rightist and old foe of the Gandhi family.

This prime property, Swami has alleged and the Congress has admitted, belongs to a company called Young Indian that is owned 76 per cent by Sonia and Rahul. The real estate on Young Indian’s books (it also owns assets in other places like Lucknow, Mumbai, Patna and Bhopal), Swami says, is worth Rs 1,600 crore. Real estate consultants value Herald House at Rs 300-400 crore. Janardan Dwivedi, the Congress spokesperson, has said that Young Indian is a “not for profit” company and, by implication, the allegation that the first family of Indian politics did things surreptitiously for personal gain is humbug.

* * *

Nehru had incorporated a company called The Associated Journals Ltd on November 19, 1937, the day his beloved daughter, Indira Priyadarshini, had turned 20. It had paid-up capital of Rs 500,000 — 2,000 preference shares of Rs 100 each (carrying a fixed but non-cumulative dividend of 5 per cent) and 30,000 ordinary shares of Rs 10 each. The objective of the company, said its memorandum of association, was to “establish and to carry on in the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) and elsewhere the business of news agency, newspaper and magazine”. The signatories included Congress heavyweights like Nehru, Purushottamdas Tandon, Kailash Nath Katju and Rafi Ahmad Kidwai. The document was witnessed by Govind Ballabh Pant. Three newspapers were published by The Associated Journals: National Herald in English, Qaumi Awaaz in Urdu and Navjeevan in Hindi.
According to one account, Ramkrishna Dalmia, once India’s third-richest industrialist after JRD Tata and GD Birla, self-proclaimed expert on international affairs, protector of the holy cow and husband to no less than six wives, had invested Rs 10,000 in Nehru’s newspaper. Dalmia and Nehru put their sons-in-law, Sahu Shanti Prasad Jain and Feroze Gandhi, respectively, on the newspaper’s board of directors. The venture required more and more money. The two began to bicker, and Dalmia left in a huff. “He is an ugly man with an ugly face and an ugly mind and an ugly heart,” Nehru would say of him. Dalmia, in turn, blamed Nehru for the plight of Hindus during Partition, amongst other things.

Over the years, the equity capital of The Associated Journals expanded significantly. In 2008, according to information available with the corporate affairs ministry, Janhit Nidhi, a trust, was the largest shareholder with 262,411 shares, followed by Delhi-based Deeksha Holdings (100,000 shares) and Mumbai-based Abhim Investments (100,000 shares). The address of Abhim Investments is interesting: Pratiksha, 10th road, Juhu Scheme, “Bombay” — the residence of Amitabh Bachchan. Mohan Meakin Breweries, of the group that produces Old Monk rum, owned 5,000 shares. State-owned Life Insurance Corporation of India held 800 preference shares. (Nehru owned only three preference shares of The Associated Journals. Daughter Indira owned 50 equity shares, while her husband, Feroze Gandhi, owned 10.)

Things took a curious turn in November 2010 when Sonia, Rahul, Congress treasurer Motilal Vora (also the chairman of The Associated Journals) and party leader Oscar Fernandes floated a not-for-profit company called Young Indian with a capital of Rs 5 lakh. While Sonia and Rahul owned 38 per cent each, Vora and Fernandes took 12 per cent stake each. A month later, on December 21, the directors of The Associated Journals, which included Vora and Fernandes, authorised assigning the company’s loans to Young Indian for a consideration of Rs 50 lakh. Technocrat Sam Pitroda and journalist Suman Dubey, old Gandhi family loyalists, were appointed on the board of The Associated Journals on the same day. The transaction of the liability was approved by the shareholders of The Associated Journals in an extraordinary general meeting on January 21, 2011 in Lucknow. The shareholders, on that day, also approved the allotment of 90.2 million shares at Rs 10 each to Young Indian. With this, the paid up capital of The Associated Journals zoomed from Rs 93 lakh to over Rs 91 crore. Young Indian came to own 98.97 per cent of the company; the remaining 1,088 shareholders were reduced to a minority.

The proposal met with some resistance at the EGM. Ishrat Ali Siddiqui, 93, a shareholder and the former chief editor of Qaumi Awaaz, accused the board members of “having no intention of reviving National Herald” (it had shut down in 2008) and selling away all the real estate of the company. Chairman Vora rushed in to reassure him that the real estate was intact and the company “definitely intended to restart the paper”. But Siddiqui wasn’t convinced. When the next meeting of the shareholders was held in New Delhi on September 26, he decided to skip it. “It makes me angry today to see all that is happening,” says he. “The Associated Journals was never envisioned as a business proposition.” Vikram Rao, the son of National Herald’s first editor, K Rama Rao, and the president of the Uttar Pradesh Working Journalists’ Union, says the newspaper should be restarted soon because the Congress needs a “mouthpiece to revive its sagging fortunes in Uttar Pradesh”. Some years back, he claims to have met Sonia and Salman Khurshid (the then chief of the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee) to request them to restart the newspaper, but nothing came out of it.

* * *

In spite of the strong Congress connections, National Herald always prided itself on its editorial independence. For instance, in the 1967 elections, remembers Haseeb Siddiqi, former chief reporter of Navjeevan, it had supported an independent candidate, A N Mullah, and not the Congress candidate, B R Mohan of Mohan Meakins, for the Lucknow seat because it “didn’t want to throw its weight behind a liquor baron”. Even when Sanjay Gandhi was at the peak of his power, the newspaper made it a policy not to carry his photograph. Trouble started after Emergency, in 1978, when there was an 18-month lockout. When the paper reopened, Yashpal Kapoor, an old confidant of Indira, became the managing director of The Associated Journals. This was the time when the company bought real estate in various cities. Kapoor left after Indira died in 1984. Another lockout followed. Rajiv Gandhi was keen to revive the newspaper and brought in Rameshwar Thakur as the managing director. “He assured us when we met him at Rae Bareli that he wanted to make National Herald the number one newspaper of India,” claims Siddiqi.

Rajiv’s death in 1991 plunged the newspaper into gloom. On January 18, 1999, the employees of The Associated Journals went to court demanding payment of arrears. Clearly, the company’s finances were in bad shape. Its 2004-05 accounts, the earliest available in online filings, say the company closed the year with a loss of Rs 78.7 lakh, which took its accumulated losses to around Rs 27 crore. That Vora, the Congress treasurer, had been running the company since 2002 doesn’t seem to have helped. In 2005-06, the staff costs jumped to Rs 15.64 crore (from Rs 4 crore in the previous year), resulting in a loss of Rs 13.3 crore. This could have been caused by a settlement with some employees. By 2008, the paper had to shut down, perhaps because it was unable to sustain the loss-making operations. Another big settlement seems to have happened in 2009. In its profit and loss account filed on October 13, 2009, the company showed expenditure under the head salaries, wages and bonus as Rs 34.19 crore. This could be the final settlement of dues of 700 employees because the next year’s statement draws a blank against the salaries and wages column.

It seems that the Congress, of which Sonia is the president, had been lending unsecured interest-free loans to The Associated Journals to meet its various liabilities towards employees and other creditors over a period of time. In 2009, when the final settlement with the 700 workers happened, the company’s unsecured loans almost doubled to Rs 78.20 crore from Rs 39.22 crore in the previous year. Though there is no reference to the Congress in The Associated Journals’ books, from the party’s statements it appears that these were “interest-free loans” given purely on “emotional” grounds to keep the loss-making venture afloat. The income tax returns of the Congress for the year ended March 2011 shows an item of “balance written off” in the expenditure column: Rs 89.71 crore. Even for a large income statement like the Congress’s, this amount sticks out. Though the return does not give further details of this sum, it neatly fits into the Young Indian-The Associated Journals transaction. According to the notes to Young Indian’s accounts for 2011-12, it had acquired loans of Rs 90.21 crore owed by The Associated Journals, “presently engaged in achieving a recast of its activities so as to have its main object congruent to the main object of the company (sic),” for Rs 50 lakh. The difference between the two is Rs 89.71 crore — the amount written off by the Congress.

The money belongs to the Congress, and it can be argued that it is free to do what it wants to do with it. But there is more to it. Earlier this year, The Associated Journals let out parts of Herald House to TCS which runs a passport service centre from here. Syndicate Bank, The Associated Journals’ banker, offers a product called SyndRent wherein it lends against receivable rental incomes. In June, the company availed a loan of Rs 2.5 crore under SyndRent for which a charge was created on Herald House. This loan was “repayable in six months from the date of disbursement in six installments of Rs 41.66 lakh. The final installment was due next month, on December 7. The monthly interest on loan was to be serviced separately. On October 15, a few days after The Pioneer broke the story, The Associated Journals settled this loan almost two months ahead of due date. Email sent to a TCS spokesperson remained unanswered.

This gives some idea of the value of Herald House. According to SyndRent rules, up to 75 per cent of the rent receivables can be availed as loan. This would mean The Associated Journals earns rent of at least Rs 60 lakh per month, or Rs 7.2 crore per annum. In downtown Delhi, where Herald House is located, annual rental income amounts to around 3 per cent of a property’s value. This would value the property at Rs 240 crore. In the company’s books, the net fixed assets were valued at a paltry Rs 1.68 crore on March 31, 2010. There is, therefore, a windfall waiting to be booked.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/paper-trail/492171/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93001838/Congress-Teesta-Setalvad-Sanjiv-Bhatt-Times-of-India-colluded-against-Narendra-Modi-SIT


Congress, Teesta Setalvad, Sanjiv Bhatt & Times of India colluded against Narendra Modi: SIT

Above: It appears that certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGO's and some political leaders were trying to use Hon'able Supreme Court / SIT as a forum for settling their scores. This would also go to show that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been colluding with the persons with vested interests to see that some kind of charge-sheet is filed against Shri Narendra Modi and others - Extracts from the closure report filed by Special Investigation Team (SIT), Supreme Court of India

http://dharmanext.blogspot.in/2012/05/congress-teesta-setalvad-sanjiv-bhatt.html

Published: November 16, 2012 00:14 IST | Updated: November 16, 2012 00:14 IST 

Herald a National vision that little resembles the old

Vivek Katju


The egalitarianism of “Gandhi-Nehru thought” has made way for Manmohan Singh thought, and the Congress should not seek to hide the fact“Ever since the Congress decided to reduce the role of the state in the economy (while the state’s role was a crucial part of Nehru’s thinking) the very words socialist or socialistic seem to have passed out of its lexicon.”

The Associated Journals was promoted by many eminent members of the Congress party in 1937. Its purpose was to contribute to the freedom movement through the vehicle of the National Herald and other newspapers at a particularly sensitive time in our history. The promoters had no desire to gain any personal financial advantage from the enterprise.

It is impossible to believe that the present Congress leadership has restructured The Associated Journals and handed over control to another company, Young Indian, for personal profit. It would have been preferable, certainly proper, though, if the restructuring exercise was undertaken not behind a curtain but transparently and openly with the party itself issuing a public statement. Political parties are generally opaque in such matters and the Congress followed existing practice. It could have set an example if it had realised non-disclosure breeds suspicion of wrongdoing and puts the party on the back foot. It would also have been a far neater exercise if the revival of the National Herald and the setting up of Young Indian had been kept on separate tracks. Surely Young Indian would have received wide public support for the commendable objectives it wishes to pursue.

Subramanian Swamy, who first brought the issue to the public domain, will no doubt agitate the matter before the courts and the Congress will have to defend its action on the technical aspects of the restructuring. Dr. Swamy has claimed that the grant of loans by the party to Associated Journals cannot come within the ambit of political activity. The courts may, therefore, have to go into the question of what such activity constitutes.

The Congress has defended the grant of the loan as part of its political work. While addressing the media earlier this month, spokesman Janardan Dwivedi asserted that it was for the party to decide on “what will be our political work”. Mr. Dwivedi went on to clarify the nature of the political work involved in the party’s financial support to the company. He said, “To promote Gandhi-Nehru thought is political work and to encourage the people, organisations and instruments working for the cause. We have discharged our political dharma because Associated Journals worked to promote Gandhi-Nehru thought”.

It is one thing to claim that the party’s actions were part of its legitimate political activity but quite another to invoke the names of Gandhi and Nehru to defend the loan to the Associated Journals. Nehru’s name has been taken because he was the principal founder of the National Herald. But by laying stress on “Gandhi-Nehru thought”, the party has opened itself to examination over whether it has, in fact, followed the thoughts it desires to promote through a presumably resurrected National Herald.

Sidelined objectives

The common objectives of Gandhi and Nehru on which there was a national consensus are found in the chapter on the Directive Principles of State Policy in our Constitution which, taken collectively, emphasise that the State should work to transform India into an egalitarian polity. It is a part of the Constitution which is much neglected and out of public discourse largely because its provisions cannot be enforced by the courts but also because it is simply inconvenient for our political class to be reminded of it. It is of course referred to by the Bharatiya Janata Party, but only in the context of the Article on a common civil code. The fact that the Directive Principles cannot be enforced does not absolve those who hold political office from not following them, for they take an oath to follow the Constitution and not selective parts of it. In fact, Article 37 specifically states inter alia that the Directive Principles are “fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws”.

The vision of an egalitarian social order was further emphasised by Nehru when the Congress in 1956 adopted the aim of ushering in a socialistic pattern of society with equitable distribution of wealth and income. In doing so it was only reiterating the instructions contained in Articles 38(2) and 39(c) of the Constitution. The former prescribes, “The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations”. The latter demands “that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment”.

Ever since the Congress decided to reduce the role of the state in the economy (while the state’s role was a crucial part of Nehru’s thinking) the very words socialist or socialistic seem to have passed out of its lexicon. It also perhaps associates them with the license-quota-raj and the corruption which flourished under it. And it certainly does not want to send wrong signals to Western companies which are being wooed so vigorously. Thus, while outlining the objectives of the Congress in the wake of the Associated Journals controversy, Mr. Dwivedi, if newspaper accounts are correct, coined a new term “social state” instead of socialist state. This was a departure from the term inclusive growth, which has become the new mantra. It is being used extensively in official literature and by our present political leadership.

Inside inclusive growth

The policies within the rubric of inclusive growth are capitalist with a desire to improve the lot of the poor and the marginalised. They have inevitably led to an increasing concentration of wealth and vast and growing disparities in income. In the present situation, it is inconceivable that the government will even think of seeking to reverse these trends. The thinking is that growth is essential for the removal of poverty and can only be achieved through the present model. If in the process, the ideal of an egalitarian society is to be sacrificed then so be it. Regrettably, it also seems that the political class and a large section of our elite think a high degree of corruption has also to be accepted in the pursuit of high rates of growth.

Times change and so do ideas and language as well as objectives. New realities emerge, requiring new thinking and action. Thus, there would be nothing wrong for the Congress to claim that the steps taken by it in the Associated Journals matter are to pursue its current political activity.

However, it is untenable for it to say that these activities are in line with “Gandhi-Nehru thought”. It moved away from crucial components of their thinking a long time ago. It now pursues Manmohan Singh thought and should openly acknowledge so.

(Vivek Katju is a retired Indian Foreign Service officer and grandson of one of the promoters of the Associated Journals company.)

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/herald-a-national-vision-that-little-resembles-the-old/article4098790.ece

December 4, 2012

Statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, fmr Union Cabinet Minister for Commerce


I condemn the Government of India's action against Maldives, freezing all official financial assistance in retaliation for the Maldive government action against GMR, an "Indian" infrastructure company. How much Indian GMR is can be seen by the company rushing to Singapore, not Kerala High Court or even Supreme Court of India for legal relief.

The Maldive government action against GMR is similar to Nasser' Egypt government take-over of the Suez Canal in 1956. The GMR airport construction project was a sweetheart deal handed by the previous Maldive government, on the pressure of UPA chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Her son Rahul Gandhi, a frequent visitor to Maldives, defacto owns a luxury resort complex in Maldives. Mr. Vadra and his now estranged wife Priyanka have been there numerous times.

The deal handed to GMR means that the company invests 10% of the project investment and gets 74% of the equity. No self respecting nation can allow such things without rectification.

Moreover GMR is a regular host with his private jet for Ms. Gandhi and her Italian family. He recently bought from Ms. Gandhi her mother in law's farm house in South Delhi at an absurdly low price with IT authorities looking the other way. This can mean only one thing. The balance was paid abroad.

Maldives is a SAARC country. So India as the largest in SAARC must use back channel efforts to settle the matter while giving due importance to Maldives national interests and self-respect.

See: http://www.rgfindia.com/annual_2007/rgics.pdf Friedrich Naumann Stiftung (FNSt) continues to be an active collaborator with the Institute. In association with the FNSt, the RGICS organised a Dialogue with Parliamentarians on “Delhi’s Master Plan-2021” and a Dialogue with Media on “Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill-2006”.

Sonia must explain foreign NGO links

By Sandhya Jain on December 15, 2012

Amidst an Assembly election fraught with national implications, the Congress announced that in the next general elections it would be led by a quartet comprising party president Sonia Gandhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Amethi MP Rahul Gandhi and Finance Minister P Chidambaram. Hot on the heels of this announcement, Narendra Modi responded with an unambiguous signal that New Delhi was his next target by writing to the Prime Minister not to ‘hand over’ Sir Creek to Pakistan.

Caught unawares, the Prime Minister’s Office angrily denied any such plans and questioned the timing of the missive – the day before the first phase of polling (Sir Creek lies in the Rann of Kutch) on December 14. Since this was a ‘personal’ letter and not a poll sop, it didn’t violate the Model Code of Conduct. But it paid back Congress for announcing the Direct Cash Transfer scheme for some Gujarat districts in the midst of campaigning (which the Election Commission censured mildly) and increasing the cap on subsidised cylinders from six to nine (which EC again had to put on hold).

The motive could be mischievous. But for a nation concerned with the secret diplomacy called Track II, where Sir Creek is reputedly gift-wrapped and Siachen Glacier stands endangered, the release of the letter before the arrival of Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik is timely. In his reply, the Prime Minister chastised the Gujarat Chief Minister for not making efforts to ascertain facts from the Government of India before shooting off his missive.

Narendra Modi should seize the invitation underlying this reprimand and ask Dr Manmohan Singh if it is appropriate that the Prime Minister, Finance Minister (former Home Minister), and two Lok Sabha MPs (including the UPA chairperson) should preside over a foundation that solicits and receives funds from foreign agencies?

Modi should specifically ask why the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation has accepted and perhaps still accepts funds from Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, which funds the Forum of Democratic Leaders in the Asia-Pacific that supports the secession of Kashmir. UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi is a co-president of this body, along with former Philippines President Corazon Aquino; South Korea leader Kim Dae-Jung; and former Costa Rica president Oscar Arias Sanchez. Others associated with FDL-AP include Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi; South Africa Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu; former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev; and former German President Richard von Weizsaecker.

It is disgraceful that the Indian Prime Minister is member of a trust funded by such dubious sources. Since Sonia Gandhi has not quit the FDL-AP even after her association came to light some weeks ago, Narendra Modi could ask the Prime Minister about the genesis and growth of Track II diplomacy. In November 1996, the FDL-AP hosted an international seminar in Manila, Philippines, on Burma; the eminences from India were M Rasgotra, vice chair, Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, and George Fernandes, MP. It is safe to say that the RGF is committed to ‘promoting democracy’ in Asia, which in the context of democratic India means allowing J&K to go its own way. As a Member of the Lok Sabha who once bid to be Prime Minister, Sonia Gandhi must explain her personal stand and that of the foundation she chairs on the issue of India’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In a section, Independent Jammu & Kashmir: Justifications & Advantages, FDL-AP asserts, “The best and most logical solution of the Kashmir issue is to re-unite Indian and Pakistani controlled parts of Jammu Kashmir State (the valley of Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) and make it a fully independent country having friendly relations with both India and Pakistan.” Readers will appreciate that this is precisely the formula mooted by then Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf at Agra, and subsequently by the phalanx of track 2 specialists. FDL-AP even claims that on August 9, 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru and on January 15, 1948, Indian representative Gopalaswami Ayengar at the UN Security Council, had declared that India fully recognised Kashmiris’ right to complete independence.

Manmohan Singh must explain the incongruity of a sitting PM and his Finance Minister joining an NGO and soliciting funds from their own Government and other sources to do social welfare! This simply means the Government he presides over is not doing its job of serving the people. If that is the case, he must choose between running the Government or running an NGO; he cannot be establishment and anti-establishment at the same time! This applies to the Finance Minister and UPA chairperson as well.

There is need to scrutinise the functioning of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, especially its foreign donors and partners, and their political objectives; charity is a good cover for interacting with political leaders and penetrating Indian society for ulterior ends, such as religious conversions.

We need explicit laws to ensure that Ministers, MPs, or Government servants are not associated with bodies that solicit funds from Government, corporate, and especially foreign sources. This undermines their dignity and autonomy and surely does not happen in any other major world capital.

The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation is too opaque. Established on June 21, 1991 to commemorate the former Prime Minister’s vision for India, its website does not even mention the law it is registered under; a protracted battle to bring it under purview of the Right to Information Act, by advocate Shanmuga Patro, made the Foundation admit it is a trust under the Indian Trusts Act 1882.

Two months later, in August 1991, RGF registered with the Home Ministry under the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act 1996, to enable it to receive foreign contributions. This is a privilege, as rules stipulate an NGO must function for at least three years on its own resources before it can apply for foreign contributions.

The RGF Board of Trustees comprises Sonia Gandhi (chairperson), Manmohan Singh, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, P Chidambaram, YK Alagh, Suman Dubey, Rahul Gandhi, RP Goenka, V Krishnamurthy, Sekhar Raha, Sir Shridath Ramphal, MS Swaminathan, Ashok Ganguly (members), and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (executive trustee).

FCRA rules specify the category of persons who cannot accept foreign contributions under Section 3(1) of FCRA, 2010, and include a candidate for election; correspondent, columnist, cartoonist, editor, owner, printer or publisher of a registered newspaper; judge, Government servant or employee of any corporation or any other body controlled or owned by the Government; member of any legislature; political party or office bearer thereof.

While the dignitaries listed above are not receiving funds in their personal capacity, it is unseemly and undignified that persons holding such high office should accept foreign funds for an organisation whose functioning is opaque.

In fact, the Foundation should declare the foreign contributions it has received since its inception and their utilisation, as balance sheets uploaded on the website do not reveal such information. Under the rules, foreign funds cannot be deposited or utilised from the bank account used for domestic funds; banks have to certify that an account is exclusive for funds under FCRA. Also, the organisation accepting foreign contributions must maintain records of receipt and purpose-wise utilisation, and submit an annual return, duly certified by a Chartered Accountant. A NIL return is mandatory if no foreign contributions are received in a particular year (Form FC-6), duly accompanied with the balance sheet certified by a Chartered Accountant.

FCRA lists 109 agencies of the United Nations, World Bank and other International agencies / multilateral organisations which are exempt from the definition of ‘foreign source’. Many have obscure names and objectives, and call for greater transparency. At a time when the nation is concerned about the subversive uses of foreign monies, all bodies receiving foreign funds should list foreign donors clearly in their balance sheets.

For instance, the Consolidated Balance Sheet as at March 31, 2009, as per RGF website, does not specify any foreign funding. Yet the Annual Report for 2008-09, at page 50 and 51 (accessed on December 12, 2012), carries a list of Partner Organisations and Donors (clubbed together). Most are Central Ministries and other government departments and bodies, private corporates, NGOs, and private trusts.

But the listed donors also include The Good Gifts, UK; German Technical Corporation (GTZ), a German federally-owned enterprise; World Memorial Fund for Disaster Management; Agrisud International, France; Cambridge Commonwealth Trust, Cambridge, UK; Rajiv Gandhi (UK) Foundation, UK; European Commission; Government of Ireland; Government of the People’s Republic of China; United Nations Development Programme; World Health Organisation; and above all, the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung (which supports secession of Kashmir).

If Manmohan Singh wants the nation to believe he is not involved in compromising national sovereignty, he should begin by resigning from the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, and withdraw his cabinet colleagues as well. Nor should serving bureaucrats be allowed on deputation to a Foundation funded by dubious foreign sources. These issues need to be addressed on an urgent basis.

http://www.niticentral.com/2012/12/sonia-must-explain-foreign-ngo-links.html

See also:
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/01/t-m-ramalingams-rs-28000-cr-us-treasury.html T M Ramalingam's 'Rs 28,000 cr' US treasury bonds story a hoax 

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/01/recovery-of-rs-91859-cr-arrear-from.html Recovery of Rs 91,859 cr arrear from Hassan Ali not possible: Finance Ministry 

Mafia does a rope trick?

By Sandhya Jain on January 15, 2013


Has the December 31, 2012 raid on the premises of Tamil Nadu trader TM Ramalingam landed in cold storage following an ‘understanding’ between the Government and the alleged true owner of this mindboggling wealth of International Bills of Exchange worth $5 billion? Readers may recall that the small town agricultural commodities trader briefly grabbed the headlines for holding $5 billion worth international bills of exchange, before quietly fading away.

On January 10, 2013, a senior Income Tax Department official informed the media that the $5 billion worth international bills of exchange appeared to be bogus, and that this had been orally confirmed by the Barclays Bank which supposedly issued the instruments on February 25, 2011; these were due to mature in February 2015.

Ramalingam was to appear before the Income Tax Department on Friday, January 11, but the meeting was abruptly cancelled and no reasons given for the same.

The story of the jaw-dropping wealth of the Tirupur district trader has taken so many twists and turns in the recent fortnight that they raise legitimate doubts about the conduct of the case. Soon after the raid, it was said Ramalingam was a nondescript agricultural commodity trader with a modest annual income of just Rs 3 lakh per annum, which kept him out of the tax net. His office-cum-residence is an 86-cent plot on the Dharapuram-Palani road, of which 27 cents is rented to a petrol bunk. The combined income from trade and rentals is Rs 3 lakh.

He ostensibly came to the notice of tax authorities when he suddenly purchased a sports utility vehicle for Rs 17 lakh without a loan. It was further alleged that Ramalingam had submitted a proposal to the Centre for a petroleum product refinery worth thousands of crores of rupees at Thondi, Ramanathapuram district, for which he set up a company, Baranidhar Refinery Private Limited. Informed sources say the story of the refinery is a red herring.

During the raids, the authorities found US Treasury Bonds worth $5 billion (Rs 28,000 crore), which later changed to $5 billion worth International Bills of Exchange (five in number). Ramalingam claimed he purchased the bills with gold bonds from a person based in Brazil, and was raising funds for his petroleum refinery. Possessing such huge bills of exchange without disclosure to income tax authorities is illegal.

After initially asking the Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India to investigate the bonds, it was announced on January 11 that the documents were being flown to the United States for physical verification. The cognoscenti s******ed it was the beginning of a cover-up.

Sure enough, barely 24 hours later – it takes a minimum 17 hours to fly to America, and the officials carrying the documents would first check into a hotel and recover from jetlag before arriving at the bank, which would take time to study the documents and give a written report about its findings – Ramalingam’s bills of exchange were pronounced a hoax! The Government now says it will investigate his frequent visits to Myanmar.

Informed sources say this development ties in with foreign media reports that Italy’s anti-mafia prosecutors seized $6 trillion worth of ‘fake’ US bonds in February 2012. The bonds were found hidden in makeshift compartments of three safety deposit boxes in Zurich; eight people were arrested in this connection. The financial fraud uncovered included two cheques issued through a bank in London for £205,000 ($325,000), not backed by available funds. The probe also yielded fake bonds for $2 billion in Rome. The individuals involved were planning to buy plutonium from Nigerian sources, according to phone conversations monitored by the police, a Bloomberg report said. All this suggests a massive international money-laundering scheme with as yet unknown objectives.

The raid at Ramalingam’s premises also yielded fixed deposits worth Rs 1.83 crore in the names of Ramalingam and his son with the State Bank of India and Karur Vysya Bank. An income tax official said Ramalingam had received Rs 2.5 crore from a Singapore company by promising it a loan from a financial institution. He used the funds to buy a new car, repair his house and deposited the balance.

The Ramalingam case seems destined to go the way of the investigations into Hasan Ali Khan, the Pune stud farm owner who shot to fame in 2007 with an account with UBS, Zurich, with $8 billion in deposits. The account has since reputedly been emptied; what else? Un-embarrassed, the Union Finance Ministry quietly informed Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance last month that it was simply ‘not possible’ to recover tax arrears of about Rs 91,000 crore from Hasan Ali Khan.

Despite growing public pressure on the issue of corruption, the UPA Government continues to sit on a list of 26 people with accounts in a Liechtenstein bank, handed over by German authorities. The UPA stand is that the names cannot be revealed as they were received on condition of ‘confidentiality’. Experts estimate that around $500 billion of Indian money is stashed away in illegal havens abroad.

Nor is the unaccounted money circulating within the country less impressive. Prior to the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election in February-March 2012, income tax authorities raided Centrestage Mall, Sector 18, Noida, and reportedly seized Rs 100 crore from a basement vault allegedly belonging to liquor baron late Ponty Chadha (Gurdeep Singh Chadha). Five cash counting machines were also recovered with the cash. A major national daily put the recovery at over Rs 125 crore in cash, while a leading regional daily reported Rs 200 crore seized, plus an additional Rs 38 crore seized from his son-in-law. But two weeks later, the stash diminished to Rs 11 crore in cash, jewellery and fixed deposits! How can Rs 100 crore (if not more) become Rs 11 crore, when estimates of cash seized are made on the basis of volume of the bundles? A 90 per cent margin of error merits an explanation.

http://www.niticentral.com/2013/01/mafia-does-a-rope-trick.html

TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2011

Rajdeep Sardesai : "No Wild Allegations Against Gandhis, Please....."
In the post ‘Why is Indian media scared of Sonia Gandhi’ I referred to an incident in a public debate on the Lokpal bill conducted by Rahul Kanwal of Headlines Today:

“Nothing about the program struck me as being new or specific except when a man wearing a green T-shirt, who introduced himself as ‘IIT Kharagpur and MBA’, started shooting questions. It was all fine until he started raising some questions about Swiss banks or KGB money apparently in relation to Sonia Gandhi. Hmmmm! That’s where Kanwal abruptly cut him off. This got me wondering all over again”.

Something similar happened on CNN-IBN last night in a discussion on the Supreme Court order setting up an SIT. Vishwabandhu Gupta, a former IT commissioner, talking about black money and Swiss accounts started referring to ‘the visit of a 41 year old politician and his mother to Switzerland…..” (before the new agreement with the Swiss authorities on black money was recently finalised) when Rajdeep Sardesai immediately cut off him. Rajdeep firmly suggested that “wild allegations should not be made”! Oh yeah! Talking about the queen or her son and their visits to Switzerland is almost blasphemy. And the media bimbos don’t like “wild allegations”. More of this later.

First, Manish Tiwari, the Congress spokesperson was unusually subdued in the discussion on CNN-IBN. As usual he started by stating that he had not read the full SC order. Then he mentioned that it wasn't really an SIT but an expansion of the High Level Committee. Wow! The SC should be clearer for the likes of Manish Tiwari. Then when it came to the SIT ordered by the SC he brought up something connected with Ramjanma Bhoomi movement having collected 400 crores and transferred it abroad. This, Tiwari suggested, was according to reports in the past by V. Gupta himself. There is no denying that the BJP may be involved in as much black money transactions as the Congress or DMK which is what Tiwari was implying. Rajdeep maintained a studied silence on the commentary by Tiwari even though that was clearly a digression. 

So what exactly are the ‘wild allegations’ that Gupta wasn’t allowed to air by Rajdeep Sardesai? Well, Gupta was probably attempting to make a connection between the visit of Sonia and Rahul Gandhi to Switzerland and subsequent Indo-Swiss agreement that black money investigations will now relate to only prospective offences. In other words past records of black money hoarders will not be accessible to the Indian government. Isn’t that convenient? One can’t be sure but that is what Vishwabandhu Gupta was probably alluding to. And why is that scary for Rajdeep Sardesai? Why is that a wild allegation or a new allegation? There are enough number of sites that have already made these allegations. Even Subramanian Swamy is on record stating the Gandhis were in Switzerland to handle black money issues, although that can be a sarcastic and snide remark. So why exactly were the Gandhis in Switzerland?

In case Rajdeep Sardesai is unaware there are many other sites that have made another startling connection in the coincidence between the Gandhis’ visit to Switzerland and another event. Yes, that’s the Bilderberg group meeting between June 9 and 12 at St. Moritz in Switzerland. The Bilderberg group is one of the most secretive group of elites who seem to set the world agenda on economy, politics and various other issues. Participating members in the past have been Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and many other prominent personalities. It has also been suggested that Richard Nixon opened up to China under pressure from the Bilderberg group. It’s not hard to find material about this group on the net and even videos on youtube. Well, all that may still be speculation. Still, would CNN-IBN or any other channel or newspaper mind telling Indians why the Gandhis were in Switzerland? No details need be furnished they could simply say it was a personal family holiday. But you won’t find even that in any media outlet. Such is the secretive and intriguing conduct of the Gandhis and their defence by media shops like CNN-IBN. Naturally, this leads to more speculation and rumours.

For the record the Supreme Court order setting up the SIT on black money makes stunning reading. It’s an order born out of extreme unhappiness and discomfort with the government’s inaction and unwillingness to act. The very first para of the SC order starts with a quote of Deep Throat’s famous advice to Bob Woodward : “Follow the money” (From Watergate’s ‘All the President’s men’) The SC didn’t mention that Deep Throat later on admonishes Woodward for sloppy work and almost letting Haldeman get away. Well, in the end Deep Throat does reveal to Woodward that the entire operation of spying, Watergate and scandals was masterminded by Haldeman. Bob Haldeman, incidentally, was the Chief of Staff at the White House under Nixon. The corruption of the systems started right from the White House in that event.The highest seat of power in the US.

Well, Rajdeep Sardesai, there is no reason to believe that all the scandals and scams that are now emerging in India do not have their source at the epicentre of the UPA power. There is every reason to believe, as does the Supreme Court, that all the Queen’s poodles are working vigorously to stall and drag the black money investigations.The Hassan Ali-Tapuriah stories seem a bit far-fetched and at best these guys maybe a front.

One has to wonder over and over again why the media is so scared about talking about allegations hurled at Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and even Sonia’s family members. They need not look in many directions to bring out these allegations – one man, Subramanian Swamy, has a whole dossier. The media channels have invited Swamy for debates on many issues but not once to discuss his allegations against the Gandhis.

The Supreme Court suggests “follow the money”! Who the hell will follow the mediacrooks who seem to protect the queen?

http://www.mediacrooks.com/2011/07/rajdeep-sardesai-no-wild-allegations.html#.UPVvkh2-pmc

Subramanian Swamy filed complaint against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora, Suman Dubey,Oscar Fernadez, Sam Pitroda and their private company Young Indian for criminal breach of trust and defrauding the assets of National Herald newspaper worth more than Rs.2000cr at Patiala Court on February 14, 2013...arguments will start...

Kalyan

attached is the petition
BEFORE THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
CASE NO. OF 2013

Dr Subramanian Swamy Complainant

Versus

Sonia Gandhi @ Edvige Albina Antonia Maino Accused
& Others

INDEX
S No Document Pages
1. Petition of Criminal Complaint along with the Affidavit of the Complainant 1-20
2. Annexure C-1 being Certificate of Incorporation dated 20.11.1937 of Associated Journals Limited 21-26
3. Annexure C-2 being List of Shareholders of Associated Journals Ltd. as on 13.9.2011 27-57
4. Annexure C-3being Letter No. DCITR-IV 04-09 dated 28.12.2004 of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, passing on Information re AICC and Associated Journals Ltd., to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31(3), New Delhi. 58-59
5. Annexure C-4, being an itemisation of real estate belonging to Associated Journals Ltd. 60
6. Annexure C-5 being chart showing the interconnection between the Accused, the Young Indian, the AICC and AJL. 61
7. Annexure C-6 being Extract of Resolution dated 26.2.2011 of Associated Journals Ltd. 62-63
8. Annexure C-7 being notice of AGM to be held on 15.5.2012, of Young Indian. 64-68
9. Annexure C-8 being Form 32 dated 16.7.2010 of Associated Journals Ltd. 69-72
10. Annexure C-9 being Form 32 dated 6.2.2011 of Associated Journals Ltd. 73-76
11. Annexure C-10 Colly being:
1. Certificate of Incorporation dated 23.11.2010 of Young Indian;
2. Resolution dated 13.12.2010 of Young Indian. 77-78
12. Annexure C-11 being Form 20B of Young Indian re AGM etc. for financial year ending 31.3.2012. 79-85
13. Annexure C-12 being Schedule 7 of Young Indian dated 20.4.2012, for the period ended 31.3.2012. 86-89
14. Annexure C-13being Letter dated 4.2.2011 of Mr. Vishwa Bandhu Gupta, resigning from Directorship of Associated Journal Ltd. 90
15. Annexure C-14, being Press Release dated 2.11.2012 of Congress Party. 91
16. Annexure C-15 Colly being:
1. Email dated 9.10.2012, from Office of Mr. Rahul Gandhi, M.P., to The Pioneer.
2. Pioneer news item dated 11.10.2012 92-93



BEFORE THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
CASE NO. OF 2013

Dr Subramanian Swamy 
A-77, Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi 110013 Complainant

Versus

1. Sonia Gandhi @ Edvige Albina Antonia Maino
President, All India Congress Committee,
10, Janpath,
New Delhi 110011 

2. Rahul Gandhi
Vice President, All India Congress Committee,
12 Tughlak Lane,
New Delhi 110011 

3. Motilal Vora.
Treasurer, All India Congress Committee, 
33, Lodi Estate,
New Delhi 110003

4. Oscar Fernandes
General Secretary, All India Congress Committee, 
8, Pandit Pant Marg,
New Delhi 110001 

5. Suman Dubey
125, Panchsheel Park,
New Delhi 110017

6. Sam Pitroda @ Satyanarayan Gangaram Pitroda 
301, Trinity Lane,
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523 USA
AND
Room No.125, Planning Commission,
Yojana Bhavan,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi 110001

7. Young Indian 
5A, Herald House,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110002


All Accused Persons

A Petition of Complaint constituting offences under Sections 403, 406 and 420r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code

This Complaint against the above named accused is most respectfully is as herein below: 

1. The Complainant is the President of the Janata Party, the political party founded by Shri Jayaprakash Narayan. The Complainant is a nationally and internationally well recognised activist as one who has been fighting against corruption in high places. He has been elected five times to Parliament and been Union Cabinet Minister for Commerce, and of Law & Justice; and he also held Cabinet rank position as Chairman of the Commission on Labour Standard and International Trade. He was awarded the Ph.D. in Economics by the world famous Harvard University USA, and has been teaching at the rank of full Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, as well as on the Faculty of the Harvard University for nearly 50 years. 

2. The Complainant heads the Action Committee Against Corruption in India [ACACI], which focuses on specific action against macro level corrupt acts especially in the criminal misconduct of high level public officials. It consists of eminent and scholarly citizens who have a record of life long fight against corruption. The website of the ACACI http://www.acaci.in/ gives all details about the aims of ACACI and the persons, who are its constituents. 

3. Even before formation of the ACACI, the Complainant has been fighting corruption at high places and was involved in exposing corruption in 2G Spectrum and Aircel-Maxis cases at all levels, in the public domain as well as in the courts. 

4. The subject matter of this Complaint are various offences including fraud, cheating, misappropriation, and criminal breach of trust by the accused persons, committed against the All India Congress Committee [hereafter Congress Party], and The Associated Journals Ltd [hereafter AJL] who are the publishers of National Herald newspaper, which newspaper was founded under the Chairmanship of Jawaharlal Nehru [Annexure C- 1] to support the fight for freedom, with the motto “Freedom is in peril. Defend it with all your might”. 

5. The cheating, fraud, breach of trust and the dishonest misappropriation of funds of the Congress party which were collected from the public at large and for which, since 1977 the party was extended tax exemption under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, was used by the Accused to criminally misappropriate the assets of the shareholders of the AJL for commercial use, albeit under the cloak of Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. 

6. This extraordinary fraud, dishonesty, cheating misappropriation and breach of trust was made possible because of crony control over the Congress party and AJL by the Accused persons, particularly A1 to A3, with reckless disregard of conflict of interest and breach of trust. 

7. Briefly, in eight swift steps this extraordinary crime was executed: 

Step 1: The AJL was formally closed and printing of National Herald, Navjivan and Qaumi Awaz was terminated and thus ceased in 2008, saddled with a huge unpaid debt of Rs 90 crores approximately. 

Step 2: On November 23, 2010, Young Indian Private Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as YI) (A7) was incorporated with just Rs. 5 lakhs as paid up capital u/s 25 of the Companies Act, in which Ms. Sonia Gandhi (A1) and her son Mr. Rahul Gandhi (A2) owned 38% each of the shares issued, that is 76 % together. 

Step 3: In December 2010, the Board of Directors of YI formally passed a resolution to “own” the outstanding debt of the AJL, and admittedly obtained an unsecured zero interest loan from the Congress Party for an equivalent amount to liquidate the said debt. The Congress Party President is also Ms. Sonia Gandhi (A1), the then General Secretary was Mr. Rahul Gandhi (A2), now Vice President, the party Treasurer is Motilal Vora (A3), who besides being share holder/director of YI (A7), was then also CMD of the AJL.

Step 4: The AJL thereafter held a meeting of its Board, and after coming to the bogus conclusion that it could not from its assets discharge the debt, resolved without reference to and approval of the shareholders, that in lieu of the YI (A7) owning of its debt, and for a further consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs from YI, the entire share equity be transferred to YI. Thus AJL became a wholly owned company of YI. 

Step 5: A1 as President of the Congress Party, along with other party office bearers A2, A3, A4, and who together owned 100% of the equity of the YI, wrote off the loan obtained from the party as irrecoverable.

Step 6: Thus, by a mere payment of Rs. 50 lakhs by YI, the company acquired the complete ownership of AJL From the Balance Sheet it can be seen that contrary to the claim of the AJL Board, the AJL had real estate assets of at least Rs. 2000 crores, including a multi-story building in prime area of New Delhi on Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. AJL has real estate in Lucknow, Bhopal, Indore, Mumbai, Panchkula, Patna and other yet identified places. A conservative estimate of real estate worth is placed at Rs 5000 crores, all provided originally by various central and state governments after 1947 for facilitating newspaper printing, and publishing.

Step 7: Having taken possession of this vast real estate the YI private limited company declared that according to its objectives submitted for obtaining registration under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 it will not engage in publishing a newspaper including the National Herald.

Step 8: National Herald House on prime property in New Delhi is opened for commercial renting. According to estimates, YI already receives at least Rs. 60 lakhs per month as rent on space made available. The fraud, cheating, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust was thus completed. 

8. The details of the fraud, cheating, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust are set out herein below in the following paragraphs. 

9. The AJL had closed down the National Herald newspaper in 2008, because of a financial crisis. AJL also published certain Urdu dailies, which also were closed down in that year. The National Herald was not owned by the Nehru family or any particular set of shareholders. It was of the general public, particularly those who were part of the freedom movement and later part of the Congress party, which had contributed most of the share capital of the AJL, evident from Annexure C-2, the list of shareholders of AJL as on 13.9.2011. At that time, around 99 per cent of shares of AJL were appropriated by Young Indian [A7 herein] by fraud and criminal breach of trust, and by making dishonest use of the misappropriated funds of the Congress party as explained later in this Complaint.

10. In late 1987 and later at different points of time, the National Herald was kept suspended and finally it was closed down in 2008.At that time, since the closure entailed the legal obligation to pay off the employees’ terminal compensation, the Congress Party had given an interest-free loan of more than Rs 90 crores to AJL. Even when, after Independence, it was functional, it was always financed and illegally by the Congress party, not by the family members of Jawaharlal Nehru. In 2004, certain Income Tax officers had brought this to the notice of their superiors, who under political pressure failed to take action [see Annexure C-3].

11. This is a crucial fact in the context of the offences alleged by this Complainant. That it was the Congress Party which was funding the paper, is an admission of fact, judging from the editorial written by the editor of National Herald on 1.4.2008 when the paper appeared last. The media reported that in its last editorial, the Editor of the National Herald wrote: "Herald hopes for a better tomorrow", stated, "With its glorious tradition, will National Herald be made to remain only a part of history, or, will it continue to function to herald change and progress in time with the positive basic values for which India has always stood?" National Herald’s then editor-in-chief T V Venkitachalam was keen that the newspaper does not become part of history as happened with Mahatma Gandhi's Harijan (which closed down during Gandhi's lifetime). He further wrote: "The paper is part of Nehru's legacy and has continued to uphold the traditions of secularism and non-alignment and I hope the Congress party will not allow it to close down finally." [http://www.sify.com/news/national-herald-shuts-down-after-70-years-news-national-jegnDCjhdff.html].

12. With the newspaper shut down , in 2008, AJL became a mere real estate company , with properties in Delhi (where it has an extremely valuable plot of land at 5A, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg on which stands Herald House) Lucknow, Bhopal, Indore and Mumbai and other as yet undiscovered places. Appended hereto as Annexure C-4 is an itemisation, albeit a rough one, setting out what is known about these properties, all in prime locations and all allotted at concessional rates, to AJL by various Governments. It is estimated that this real estate is presently certainly worth more than Rs 2000 crores in its balance sheet. Informal estimates put this value at Rs 5000 crores. Against this, AJL owed an amount of just over Rs 90 crores to the Congress party for zero interest unsecured loans. Besides this, it had very little other liability. The balance of real estate of AJL left over even after paying off the Rs. 90 crore plus loan due to the Congress party, actually legally and morally belonged to AJL's thousand plus shareholders. Big and small shareholders of AJL had contributed approximately Rs 89 lacs to AJL's capital at different times when the Rupee was valued at more than hundred times its present value. If AJL's shares or real estate had been sold by bid and auction and the proceeds distributed to them, hundreds of shareholders would have received back sums equivalent to several thousand times the amount invested by them originally because of the huge appreciation in the value of the real estate owned by AJL; and the Congress party would have got back the loan with interest from 2008. 

13. The core of the instant Complaint is as follows: the Accused have conspired to commit the offences of dishonestly misappropriating, cheating, and criminal breach of trust by the following acts and modus operandi, namely:

i. On November 23, 2010, Sonia Gandhi [A1] and Rahul Gandhi [A2] came together with other accused for a criminal conspiracy and thus formed a company named Young Indian [A7] under Sec 25 of the Companies Act. A1 and A2 control 76 per cent of the total shares of Young Indian; and together with A3 and A4, who are their loyalists; they own 100 percent of the shares [see the appended chart which is Annexure C- 5]. 
ii. The very next month, December 2010, the Accused A1 and A2 with other Accused, conspired and got assigned to themselves the debt of Rs 90.25 crores owed to the Congress Party since 2008 by AJL (whose funds are entrusted to, and also controlled by, A1 to A3 as President, Vice President, and Treasurer / office bearers of the Congress party) for a paltry consideration of Rs 50 lakhs by fraudulently misrepresenting that AJL had no net-worth and is unable to re- pay that debt to the Congress party, when in fact AJL has huge real estate worth thousands of crores and relatively very little liabilities. 
iii. By this step, by paying just Rs 50 lakhs, A7 (the surrogate of A1 and A2), obtained the right to recover Rs 90.25 crores from AJL. Thus, A1 to A4 dishonestly cheated, misappropriated and committed criminal breach of trust on the Congress party to the extent of Rs 89.75 crores [equal to Rs 90.25 crores minus Rs. 50 lakhs];
iv. Finally, on 26.2.2011, A3 (who was director in AJL since 2002 and who by 2006 had become Chairman of AJL and who by 2010 had become Chairman and Managing Director of AJL) and A5 (made a director of AJL on 21.12.2010) and A6 (made director of AJL on 17.6.2010) passed resolutions to convert the loan of Rs 90.25 crores (that had been assigned to Young Indian [A7]) into almost all its equity shares, thereby vesting in Young Indian (A7) control and indirect ownership of around 99 percent of real estate worth thousands of crores of rupees. Appended hereto as Annexure C-6 are the Minutes of the aforesaid meeting of AJL.
Thereby the Accused committed criminal breach of trust on the Congress and/or the shareholders of AJL; and properties of the shareholders of AJL and/or the rights (which ought to have accrued to the Congress party by the conversion of the loan of Rs. 90.25 crores into equity) was dishonestly misappropriated by the Accused; and the Shareholders of AJL and/or the Congress Party were cheated. 
v. Thus, it appears to be a case of double cheating, double criminal misappropriation and double criminal breach of trust – once by getting the loan of Rs 90.25 crores due to the Congress from AJL assigned for Rs 50 lacs in favour of A7 controlled by A1 and A2 with the participation of A3 and A4 by misrepresenting that AJL's net-worth is negative when its book value as well as the real net-worth were hugely positive; and once more by converting the loan costing Rs 50 lakhs only in the hands of A7 into equity shares of the face value of Rs 90.25 crores and with real values running into thousands of crores of rupees.
vi. The First Accused [Sonia Gandhi] has been the President of the Congress Party since 1997 and presently is its President and in that capacity she is, in law and in fact, entrusted with the properties and funds of the organisation which she had the duty to safeguard and protect. She is the longest serving President of the Congress Party having been elected as such in 1997. The First Accused is regarded as the most powerful leader of the Congress party since Independence. The bio-data of the First Accused is in the All India Congress Committee website URL: http://www.aicc.org.in/new/aicc-president-bio.php. The Congress Party constitution provides in Art XIX (i) as follows: 

“The Working Committee shall constitute a Trust for holding immoveable properties belonging to the All India Congress Committee. The Board of Trustees of the said trust shall be appointed by the Working Committee and shall comprise of not less than five nor more than nine Trustees including the Chairman and the other ex-officio Trustees. The President of the Congress shall be Chairman (ex-officio) of the Trust and the Treasurer of the AICC and the General Secretary Incharge of Administration of AICC shall be ex-officio members of the Board. The term of the members of the Board of Trustees other than the Chairman and the two other ex-officio Trustees shall be three years. The properties shall be held in the name of the said Trust and if that be not possible in a certain case/cases, then in such manner as directed by the Working Committee.”
The Congress Constitution is clear that the President of the Congress Party is the ex-officio trustee of the immovable property of the party. Again under Art XIX (i) of the Constitution “The President shall appoint a Treasurer....from amongst the members of the Working Committee.”
It is evident from the Constitution [Art XIX (i)] that the President and the Treasurer of the Congress Party are entrusted with the immovable properties of the party. The Constitution of the Congress Party provides that “Indulging in fraudulent action relating to Congress funds” and “embezzlement of Congress funds” are [Art 4(c) of the Constitution] a breach of discipline, obviously because it is also breach of trust. 
The First Accused is the leading conspirator to commit the fraud, cheating, dishonest misappropriation and criminal breach of trust against the Congress party of which A1 is the President and against AJL and its shareholders and she is a main beneficiary of the fraud, cheating, dishonest misappropriation, and criminal breach of trust. A1 facilitated the assignment of the loan due from AJL to the Congress Party in favour of Young Indian (over which A1 and A2 exercised 76 per cent control) and of which the meetings are invariably held at 10 Janpath, New Delhi 110001, the official residence of A1. Appended hereto as Annexure C-7 are certain minutes of the meetings dated 15.5.2012 of Young Indian, which make this good.
vii. The Second Accused is the Vice President of the Congress party and the son of the First Accused. He was General Secretary of Congress party for the past six years and elevated as Vice President in January 2013. Irrespective of the Constitutional provisions of the Congress Party, the First and the Second Accused factually control the entire Congress party and its decision making. The family of the First and the Second Accused persons constitute the most powerful extra-constitutional power centre of the Congress party. The views and words of the First and the Second Accused persons finally bind the Party. 
The Second Accused is also a leading conspirator and beneficiary (being the son of A1 and designated as her sole political legatee) to commit fraud, cheating, dishonest misappropriation and criminal breach of trust against the Congress party (of which A2 is presently sole Vice President) and against AJL and its shareholders; and he is also another main beneficiary of the fraud, cheating, dishonest misappropriation, and criminal breach of trust. In fact, from 2008 onwards, A2 held ,on behalf of certain of his family trusts, 3 lakh shares of AJL.(In 2011, of these 3 lakh shares, A2 transferred 2.4 lakh shares in AJL within the family, to his sister Priyanka Vadra). Also A2 facilitated the assignment of the loan due from AJL to the Congress Party in favour of Young Indian over which A1 and A2 exercised 76 per cent control.
viii. The Third Accused was given charge in 1998, of the finances of the Congress party; and since 2000, he has been formally designated as the Treasurer of the Congress party; and presently he continues to be the Treasurer of the Congress Party. Article XX of the Congress Constitution provides under the title “Treasurer” that “The treasurer shall be incharge of the funds of the Congress and shall keep proper accounts of all investments, income and expenditure.” According to the Constitution of the Congress party, the Treasurer is the appointee of the President of the Congress Party and it is not an elected post. The Third Accused is also the director and Chairman and Managing Director of the board of directors of AJL and he was controlling the affairs of AJL as a fiduciary of the shareholders and of the company. 
The Third Accused is again a critical conspirator to commit the fraud, cheating, dishonest misappropriation and criminal breach of trust against the Congress party of which A3 is the Treasurer and against AJL and its shareholders; and he is also a beneficiary of the fraud, cheating, dishonest misappropriation, and criminal breach of trust. A3 facilitated the assignment of the loan due from AJL to the Congress Party in favour of Young Indian over which A1 and A2 exercised 76 per cent control and in which A3 was holding a 12 per cent interest.
ix. The Fourth Accused has for decades, been a close and loyal associate of the family of the First and Second Accused. He is a longstanding office-bearer of the Congress Party and presently he is its General Secretary. The Fourth Accused was made a director of AJL on 17.6.2010 which appears to be the beginning of the fraud perpetrated as explained herein. Appended hereto as Annexure C-8, is evidence of his induction in AJL.
The Fourth Accused is again an important and integral conspirator to commit the fraud, cheating, dishonest misappropriation and criminal breach of trust against the Congress party (of which A4 is a General Secretary) and against AJL and its shareholders and as pointed out hereinabove, he is also a beneficiary of the fraud, cheating, dishonest misappropriation, and criminal breach of trust. A4 facilitated the assignment of the loan due from AJL to the Congress Party in favour of Young Indian over which A1 and A2 exercised 76 per cent control and in which A4 was holding 12 per cent interest.
x. The Fifth Accused has, for several decades, been a close and loyal associate of the family of the First and Second Accused persons. The Fifth Accused was one of the promoters of Young Indian [A7] which was the instrument through which the fraud and criminal breach of trust was executed by the Accused persons. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the Fifth Accused was made director of AJL on 21.11.2010 (see Annexure C-9) which appears to be the preparatory step, after getting the AJL loan due to the Congress assigned to Young Indian [A7] to the conversion of the loan into equity in favour of Young Indian. On the same day A1 became director of Young Indian [A7], i.e., 21.12.2010, A5 (who held 550 shares in A7) transferred his holdings to A1; but he continues to be a Director and authorised signatory of AJL.(see Annexure C-9). In fact, at the inception of Young Indian, the registered address of A7 was at the residence of A5, and the first meeting of its Managing Committee was held at his residence; and he was also the authorised signatory of Young Indian (See Annexure C-10 Colly).
xi. The Sixth Accused has been the close friend and loyalist of the family of the First and the Second Accused persons since at least 1984 when he became the Technology Adviser to the then Prime Minister, the husband of the First Accused. The Sixth Accused is one of the promoters of Young Indian which was the instrument through which the fraud, misappropriation, cheating and criminal breach of trust was executed and as such the sixth accused is an important conspirator in the crime. The Sixth Accused, likewise, was made director of AJL on 21.12.2010, which, as pointed out earlier, appears to be the preparatory step, after getting the AJL loan due to the Congress assigned to Young Indian [A7] to the conversion of the loan into equity in favour of Young Indian. On the same day A1 became director of Young Indian [A7], i.e. 21.12.2010, A6, who held 550 shares in A7 transferred his holdings to A4; but he continues to be a director of Young Indian (A7), and also of AJL. 

14. The Seventh Accused is the Young Indian company, incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act in which the Accused persons 1 to 4 hold the total capital, and A1 and A2 hold 76 per cent, and in which A6 is a Director, and A5 is both a Director, and the authorised signatory. 
It is relevant to note the dates of appointment to the Board of Young Indian, of its six founding Directors, all Accused herein (see Annexure C-11):
22.11.2010: A-5 and A-6;
13.12.2010: A-2;
22.1.2011:A-1, A-3, and A-4.
(The first financial year after incorporation of A7 covered the period from 23.11.2010 up to 31.3.2012 (See Annexure C-12)).

15. Sometime in the second/third quarter of the year 2010, the Accused persons ( who are fiduciaries entrusted with the funds and properties of the Congress party and AJL, which was funded on a regular basis by the Congress party and is therefore the property of the Congress party in substance) entered into a criminal conspiracy, with dishonest and fraudulent intention, to cheat the Congress party and misappropriate and embezzle its funds entrusted to the care of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Accused and conspired with the other accused namely Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Accused and used the funds of the Congress Party illegally to subscribe for and take over 99 per cent control of the shareholding of AJL through a company which A1 to A4 controlled 100 percent and thus cheat and embezzle the funds and the properties belonging to over a thousand shareholders of AJL who had invested into it and/or the Congress party which had lent Rs 90.25 crore to it, the ultimate object of the conspiracy being to misappropriate the assets of the Congress and AJL impressed with the character of trust and convert those assets to their own control and use. As pointed out earlier, Annexure C-5 is a chart showing the interconnection between the Accused, the Young Indian, the Congress party (AICC) and AJL. 

16. But, by deep criminal design and defying law and indeed the Constitution of the Congress party, the Accused Persons misappropriated control of AJL's at least Rs.2000 crores worth of real estate without paying a paisa to AJL's shareholders and to the Congress [which had funded the subsistence of AJL from time to time and also lent Rs 90.25 crores to enable closure of the publication of National Herald (so as to make it debt free and transform it into a high value real estate company)]. 

17. In just three months, between November 2010 and February 2011 and in the below mentioned (see Para 22 herein below) four moves, control of thousands of crore worth properties, belonging to the shareholders of AJL and/or the Congress Party ,passed to the control of A1 to A4 particularly to the family of A1 and A2. 

18. The criminal conspiracy dishonestly and fraudulently to double-cheat and misappropriate by which Congress Party on the one hand and the shareholders of AJL on the other and the assets of the Congress party as well the properties of AJL were criminally misappropriated unfolds thus: 

i. As the First step, preparations for forming a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, with a view to criminally misappropriate the funds and properties of the Congress party and AJL as explained in detail hereinafter began on 17.6.2010, at which time, A4 was made director of AJL. 
ii. As the Second step, on 23 November 2010, the charitable trust company under Section 25 of the Companies Act named “Young Indian” [Accused 7] was formed with capital of just Rs 5 lakhs, in which, finally, Sonia Gandhi [A1] and Rahul Gandhi [A2] acquired and owned 38 percent each [total 76 percent between the two of them] and two close associates of A1 and A2, Motilal Vora, Treasurer of the Congress Party [A3] and Oscar Fernandez, General Secretary of the Congress Party [A4] owned the balance 24 percent, making it cent percent owned and controlled by A1 to A4. The intention is self-evident that 76 percent of the voting rights in the company which virtually means the full ownership of a corporate under the law should vest between A1 and A2. 
iii. The Third step, the very next month, December 2010, A1 and A2 got the Congress party to assign the Rs 90 crores plus loan given to AJL in 2008 to Young Indian [A 7] by paying to the Party a paltry sum of Rs 50 lakhs by dishonestly misrepresenting to the Congress Party that the amount of Rs 90 crores was irrecoverable and therefore had to be written off. The Congress wrote off the balance Rs 89.75 crores as irrecoverable. This creative and criminal accounting which enabled cheating and misappropriation of the funds of the Congress Party by the accused persons particularly A1 and A2, substituted Young Indian for the Congress, entitling Young Indian [A7] to recover Rs 90 crores plus due from AJL. And simultaneously, A5 and A6 were made directors of AJL to enable the criminal conspiracy to be executed.
iv. As the Fourth and final step, in February 2011, AJL converted the Rs 90 crore plus due to Young Indian [A7] into equity shares and allotted them. By this step, Young Indian [A7] which was 100 percent controlled by A1 to A4 became almost 99 percent owner of AJL, and as much of the real estate of AJL. The very fact that when AJL had assets worth at least Rs.2000 crores, the Congress party was forced by the Accused persons A1 to A4 to write off Rs 89.75crores due from it as bad debt (when in fact, it is a good and recoverable debt considering the extent of properties of AJL), makes explicit the dishonest and fraudulent intention of the Accused persons. 

19. The very fact that but for the accused persons (who are in absolute control of the Congress party) the Congress Party would not have written off Rs 89.75 crores in favour of Young Indian (which is also controlled by them), shows that the Accused persons have dishonestly and fraudulently misused their fiduciary position to cheat and defraud the Congress Party. It does not appear that the Congress Working Committee or AICC know of, or consented to, waive the debt of Rs 89.75 crore to in favour of the President [A1] and the General Secretary [A2] through the section 25 company Young Indian [A7]. The criminal intent to cheat and dishonestly misappropriate the Congress Party funds is self -evident from the fact in the founding documents of Young Indian the one word that is totally absent is “Congress”. (See Annexure C-12) The criminal design is explicit. 

20. The intention of the Accused was that name of the Congress, (whose funds misappropriated by Young Indian [A7] was used to fraudulently misappropriate the properties and funds of AJL), should be kept out completely so that there is no trace of the fraud left (and no proceeds from selling/utilising/renting etc. should pass on to the Congress party) and that the Accused 1 to 4 and particularly A1 and A2 should , for a pittance, exclusively grab control of AJL's lands at Delhi, Lucknow, Bhopal, Indore and Mumbai worth thousands of crores .
Significantly Vishwa Bandhu Gupta who was director in AJL since 19.6.2000 suddenly resigned or was made to resign on 4.2.2011 (see Annexure C-13) before the final act of AJL to convert the 90.25 crore loan originally due to the Congress party and misappropriated by A7 as explained in detail into equity shares by which 99 control of AJL passed into the hands of A1 to A4. 

21. The structure of the Young Indian [A7] and the way it is owned and controlled, show how the cheating of the Congress party and AJL and the criminal misappropriation of the property and funds of both was carried out and completed. With A1 and A2 and their loyalists A3 and A4 holding its entire capital, the directors of Young Indian [A7] are, besides the shareholders A1 to A4 (who hold the entire capital of A7), time-tested friends of the family of A1 and A2,( namely A5 and A6). According to the first Annual report of Young Indian [A7] dated [27th April 2012], it “is engaged in activities to inculcate in the mind of India's youth commitment to the ideals of democratic and secular society”.

22. The first act of A7, after its birth in November 2010, to “inculcate” such ideals in youth, was to forthwith start “operations in December 2010” and as its first act in pursuance of “its objects”, it acquired the “loan owed” by AJL “for a consideration of Rs 50 lakhs”, by which it became APL's 99 percent owner. So the first act of Young Indian [A7] to promote idealism in Indian youth was to cheat, defraud and misappropriate the property of the Congress party to the extent of Rs 89.75 crores on the one hand and the shareholders of AJL of couple of thousands crore on the other. 

23. The Annual Report of Young Indian [A7] discloses and admits the further design to complete the irreversible merger of the misappropriated funds and properties of the Congress Party and AJL into itself, namely, by altering the character of AJL itself. The Annual Report of A7 says that AJL is recasting “its activities” to align AJL's objects to Young India's “main objects”, which indicates the final intention to merge AJL into Young India. The Annual Report of A7 further says that “as part of the restructuring exercise of” AJL, the “loan was converted into equity”. It shows a blatant design to suppress facts. Annual Report of Young India [A7], which is a pauper, speaks as if it is helping to restructure AJL. The director's report of A7 (see Annexure C-12) shows that, from its inception in November 2010 to March 2012, its total income was just Rs 800! Its total expenditure was Rs 69.79 lakhs and its loss, after deducting its income [Rs 800] was Rs 69.78 lakhs. The Report of Young India [A7] nowhere mentions that AJL has huge real estate, because if it were mentioned the question would arise as to why with huge real estate, AJL would need an asset-less and income-less pauper Young India [A7] for its restructure. 

24. The deepening design and criminal intent are also self-evident from the fact that Annual Report of Young Indian [A7] intentionally conceals the crucial fact that the loan of more than Rs 90 crores, owed by AJL to it was originally due to the Congress party – the intention being that that Young Indian looted the Congress should be concealed. The report also suppresses the fact that AJL with asset base of at least Rs 2000 crores had become its wholly owned subsidiary. Section 212 of the Companies Act 1956 requires that the Directors’ Report of the holding company should give details of the subsidiary company. This information is to be given for The Report also says, in fine print, that shareholders will get information regarding the subsidiary on request and the shareholders are A1 [Sonia Gandhi] A2 [Rahul Gandhi] A3 [Motilal Vora] A4 [Oscar Fernnandez] A5 [Suman Dubey] and A6 [Sam Pitroda]. This is a fraud on law, which, under section 212 of the Companies Act 1956, requires that the details of the subsidiary be attached to the balance sheet of the holding company. 

25. With a view to conceal the fraud from coming to public notice or otherwise get found out, Young Indian [A7] has totally suppressed its 99 percent holding in AJL saying that the shareholding “is treated as application on the object of the company” and so “the same has not been reflected as an investment in shares”. This deceptive accounting jargon means that the payment of Rs 50 lacs for 99 percent of shares of AJL worth thousands of crores is shown, not as an asset, but as expenditure. It is obvious that the design was to keep the 99 percent shareholding in AJL held by Young Indian [A7] out of the balance sheet of Young Indian [A7], so that the very fact that almost the entire paid up capital of AJL is owned by Young Indian [Accused 7] is kept totally suppressed. The annual report of Young Indian also fabricates a blatant false story that, since the net worth of AJL is negative, its investment in 99 percent capital of AJL is written off as expenditure. The truth is that the balance sheet of AJL as on 31.3.2011 shows a positive net worth Rs 8 crore; of which Young Indian's 99 percent share is Rs 7.92 cr. So the negative net worth story is a fabrication. The real net worth of Young Indian assets net of liability is of course over Rs 2000 crores. 

26. The Complainant had brought out the fraud through a press conference addressed by him on November 1, 2012 at Delhi. The Complainant had mentioned in the press release how the A1 and A2 had misappropriated the funds of the Congress Party and through the misappropriated funds of the congress party how they misappropriated the properties of AJL and besides the complainant had also pointed out that two floors of the Herald House in New Delhi which is one of the prime properties owned by AJL had been let out to Pass Port Seva Kendra of the Central Government of which A1 heads the National Advisory Council. The complainant has since come to know that the rent paid for the two floors by Pass Port Seva Kendra is Rs 60 lacs per month. The Complainant had also pointed out that the meetings of Young Indian [A7] were held at No. 10, Janpath, which is the official residence of A1. 

27. In the context of the allegation by the Complainant, after the exposure of the fraudulent dealing by A1 to A4, the spokesperson Congress Party told the nation on November 2, 2012 (see Annexure C-14) that the Congress Party had lent Rs 90 crores to National Herald [AJL] and that revival of National Herald, a symbol of Gandhi-Nehru ideals, was an “emotional issue” for the party. This gave the impression that the Congress has paid more than Rs 90 crore now for Herald revival. But the Party had actually paid the amount in 2008 to help close, not revive, the Herald. Even as the Congress party spokesperson asserted on November 3, 2012 that the Congress party had paid the money to revive National Herald and that reviving National Herald was an emotional issue for the party, just three weeks earlier, on October 11, 2012, the media reported that Rahul Gandhi was emphatic that Young Indian had no intention of re-launching any newspaper (see Annexure C-15-Colly) The media reported that Rahul Gandhi was speaking for Young Indian [A7]. The media reported that by an email to The Pioneer, Rahul Gandhi's office said “Young Indian is a not-for-profit company and does not have commercial operations......The company has no intention of starting any newspaper”. It is self-evident that the entire story of revival of National Herald is sham and a post facto lie after the exposure of the fraud by the complainant.

28. The family of A1 and A2 usurping through the instrumentality of Young Indian [A7] the AJL's real estate of several thousand crores, with the embezzled loan funds of the Congress ,constitutes various offences including fraud, misfeasance, breach of trust and cheating on the Congress Party and AJL and its shareholders of AJL. It is ironical that while Pandit Nehru said "I will not let the National Herald close down even if I have to sell [my own house] Anand Bhawan", the third and fourth generation members of the late leader’s family Gandhis have closed down the National Herald and misappropriated its properties by employing the embezzled funds of the Congress party. 

29. The Accused herein are therefore guilty of conspiring together to commit dishonest misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust and cheating. 

30. The Accused have conspired together to commit dishonest misappropriation of the debt due from AJL to the Congress party by false representing that the AJL was unable to pay the debt and having the debt of Rs 90 crores assigned for a paltry consideration of Rs 50 lacs to A7, controlled by A1 to A4 and using that debt to acquire 99 percent of the shares of AJL which has property worth thousands of crores of rupees. 

31. The Accused have conspired together to commit criminal breach of trust of the properties of the Congress party and AJL, which belongs to its shareholders and to the Congress party which had been funding its survival and had funded its closure, and converted the properties of the Congress party and of AJL to their own exclusive control. In doing so they have rendered themselves liable to be punished for various offences including Section 406 of IPC read with Section 120(B) of the IPC. 

32. The Accused have also dishonestly induced the Congress party to assign to them its valuable right to recover Rs 90 crores from AJL for a paltry sum of Rs 50 lacs by fraudulently representing to the Congress party that AJL was unable to pay that debt when in fact they knew that AJL's assets were worth thousands of crores and that AJL would be able to pay off the debt. The Accused have therefore committed substantive offences u/s 420 of IPC. 

33. It is appropriate that your honour would be graciously pleased to take cognisance of the aforesaid offences and to issue process to set the criminal procedure into motion to prosecute the Accused under various sections of the IPC including Sections 403, 406, and 420 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and directing them to stand trial of this case and pass such other orders including issue search warrants as you honour may deem fit to meet the ends of justice.

34. And for this act of kindness, the Complainant, as in duty bound, shall forever pray.

Date February 14, 2013
Place : New Delhi COMPLAINANT




AFFIDAVIT

I, Subramanian Swamy, resident of A 77, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013, aged about 73 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. THAT I am Complainant in the above matter and fully acquainted with the facts of the instant case and fully competent to swear thereto.
2. THAT the facts stated in this Complaint are true to my personal knowledge.
3. THAT the legal submissions stated in this Complaint are believed by me to be true. 
4. THAT Para 33 is a prayer.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at Delhi on this day of January 2013 that the facts stated in stated in this Complaint hereinabove are true to my personal knowledge, no part of this affidavit is false and nothing material is concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

ANNEXURE C-4
ITEMISATION OF THE REAL ESTATE BELONGING TO ASSOCIATED JOURNALS LTD.

THE DETAILS OF A FEW PROPERTIES ARE GIVEN BELOW WHICH ARE AMONG OTHER PROPERTIES:
1. Delhi: Herald House, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Delhi-110002.
This is a seven storey building on around 50 cents of land, with about 1,00,000 square feet of office space.
2. Mumbai: At Bandra East, near Bandra Station.
This is a building on a 3,400 square yard plot.
3. Lucknow: A two acre plot on which stand two buildings, Nehru Bhawan and Nehru Manzil.
4. Indore: A 22,000 square foot property, with buildings.
5. Bhopal: A 50,000 square foot plot with building.

How RahulG countered terror: NDTV story promoting RahulG falls flat. After 26/11 RahulG was busy partying in Satish Sharam's son's marriage functions

Rahul Gandhi's style of leadership was proven after 26/11: Minister Milind Deora
Reported by Sunetra Choudhury, Edited by Janaki Fernandes | Updated: April 23, 2013 17:26 IST


New Delhi: During and after 26/11, Rahul Gandhi took an active role in the efforts of the government to contain the fallout of one of India's worst-ever terror attacks, said Milind Deora, junior minister for Communication and Information Technology, to NDTV today.

Mr Deora, who is counted among Mr Gandhi's "youth brigade", said that many of Mr Gandhi was a driving force for the creation of the National Investigation Agency or NIA, set up after the Mumbai attacks to coordinate intelligence alerts and counter terror strikes.

"This was the first time that urban India woke up to demanding more accountability from the political class," Mr Deora said. " I saw someone like him (Mr Gandhi) working behind-the- scenes to give political support to those in power to say go out and do the right thing," Mr Deora said. 

166 people were killed during the 72-hour siege of Mumbai by 10 Pakistani terrorists in 2008. 

"I saw him personally meeting people in the Home Ministry, top brass , even talking to me who is an MP in the local area, talking to then Chief Minister, trying to get things moving, trying to give in his way political support to those who are in power," Mr Deora recalled. 

Responding to allegations that Mr Gandhi has been MIA during recent defining moments in India, like the massive street protests that followed the Delhi gang-rape in December, the minister said the Congress leader's critics misread his style of leadership. "I think there is a range of style of functioning for all politicians. Some prefer to do it silently, some prefer to thump their chest and say 'I am doing this, I am great and deserve much more credit than it is due.'"

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rahul-gandhi-s-style-of-leadership-was-proven-after-26-11-minister-milind-deora-357899?pfrom=home-lateststories 

Rahul in party mood soon after Mumbai crisis
MAIL TODAY BUREAU | New Delhi, December 1, 2008 | 11:02
Even before the tears of Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan’s mother could dry up, Congress general secretary and heir apparent Rahul Gandhi went partying with his pals at a farmhouse on Delhi’s outskirts.

The Prince partied hard, till 5 in the morning, on Sunday at the ‘sangeet’ for the forthcoming wedding of Samir Sharma, his childhood friend. They were at a sprawling farmhouse at Radhey Mohan Chowk, the haven of people who lead charmed lives beyond Chhatarpur.

Just a day earlier, his sister Priyanka Vadra had caused a flutter by saying the late Indira Gandhi would have “made us very proud” by the way she would have reacted to the Mumbai terror strikes. Mumbai appeared to be far from her brother’s mind as he boogied at the farmhouse with Samir Sharma, US-based furniture designer son of Captain Satish Sharma, the late Rajiv Gandhi’s flying partner who nursed the First Family’s pocketborough, Rae Bareli, till Sonia Gandhi chose to contest from there in 2004.

The Prince seemed to be completely out of sync with the mood of the nation post-26/11. Since Wednesday night, officials have been cancelling parties they were meant to host and even restaurants called off special events.

Saturday night’s ‘sangeet’ was a lavish affair. It was hosted by Leena Musafir, sister of the woman with whom Samir is getting married, and her husband Inder. The party was attended by over 800 guests, including regulars at Page 3 dos. “When everyone is cancelling parties or just keeping them low-key, Rahul Gandhi had no business to be celebrating. His action makes us lose faith in future leaders,” said Ajay Bahl, a leading corporate lawyer who was trapped in the thick of the action on 26/11 at The Oberoi, Mumbai, but managed to escape with the help of the hotel staff.

The Gandhis, including Sonia Gandhi’s mother Paola Maino, were present in strength at the 2004 wedding of Samir’s sister, Sarika, who is married to actorturned- TV producer Rahul Bhatt. Sarika and Rahul now manage a television production house.

The two families may be very close — Captain Sharma and his wife, Sterre, were present throughout the very private wedding of Priyanka Gandhi and Robert Vadra — but the circumstances now are very different.

As a guest at the ‘sangeet’ remarked on the condition of anonymity, “We were all partying, but none of us is a public person. Rahul Gandhi, however, is. He must be more responsible in his social appearances.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Rahul+in+party+mood+soon+after+Mumbai+crisis/1/21442.html