MODY'S REPLY IN SEPTEMBER 2003 IN RESPONSE TO SOPARKAR'S REPLY TO BAR COUNCIL

BY HAND DELIVERY

P.S .MODY
C/O S.S. MODI
40 BMM SOCIETY
PALDI,
AHMEDABAD 380 006
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003

THE CHAIRMAN
BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT
OPPOSITE GUJARAT HIGH COURT
SOLA-GANDHINAGAR HIGHWAY
AHMEDABAD

SIR.

SUB: MY COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. SAURABH N. SOPARKAR
YOUR REF:complaint file 38/2002 and your letter dated
August 29,2003
=========================================

(I) I am grateful to you for taking up the issue of my complaint against Mr. Soparkar and furnishing reply from Mr. Soparkar dated August 21,2003 to the undersigned. I understand that he wanted more time to reply your letter as he needed time to recollect the matter as it was old matter. This was inspite of copy of my complaint furnished to Mr. Soparkar directly in September 2002. As he being member of the Bar Council ,he would have taken the initiative to furnish copy of reply immediately to the Bar Council by fighting back to guard his own strength of character and reputation. As he did not take such steps then , therefore, his inaction reflects his guilty conscience.

(II) My immediate observations are as under:-

a) Mr. Soparkar has not furnished reply in form of a notarized stamped affidavit bearing his signature on each page in presence of witness. In view of the seriousness of issues he is asked to furnish the reply furnished by him dated 21st August 2003 in form of notarized stamped affidavit. He shall furnish further replies in form of notarized affidavit in presence of bankers or members of bar council .

b) Mr. Soparkar is undermining and insulting the collective intelligence of the Bar Council by furnishing more than 100 pages of irrelevant matter to the members of Bar Council to create confusion and side track the main issues raised in my complaint any person of common sense can understand very well. He has mastered the art of concealment and has no hesitation even to take the members of Bar Council for a ride.

c) Mr. Soparkar has not submitted:-
# my letters dated 10-5-2002 and 6-8-2002.
# copy of all memorandum of understandings bearing signature of Jalundhwala.
# correspondence between advocates A.D. Shah and Mr. Shelat,
# written affidavit of Jalundhwala, Dhanyushya , Kashiparekh, K C
Gandhi referred in my letter dated 10-5-2002, 6-8-2002 and my
complaint letter to Bar Council against him.,
# copy of appeal from from order 176/03.
# joint notarized affidavit from Dhanyushya, Core Health Care
directors that there is no conflict of interest amongst
themselves and this is certified by the auditors of the companies.
# certificate from the auditors of Dhanyushya that Rupmanglam
and Flovin are its fully owned subsidiraries along with
respective audited balance sheets and minute book records.
# Mr. Kashiparekh’s reply to the letter dated 29/7/99 addressed
to him referred in suit 5827/2001.


UNLESS THIS PARTICULARS ARE SUBMITTED BY MR. SOPARKAR AND COPY MARKED TO ME , HURDLES AND OBSTRUCTIONS ARE DELIBERATELY CREATED BY MR. SOPARKAR TO CONCEAL TRUTH FROM EMERGING.


d) . Soparkar inspite of his denial of role as escrow , has produced
Primae facie confirmation from Dhanyuhsya, Jalundhwala, Core
Health Care that he and Mr. Kashiparekh are escrow person in view of Para C of page 92 of submissions made by him showing referring his role and Kashiparekh’s role as escrow persons. When Dhanyuhsya, Jalundhwala , Core Health confirm and acknowledge his role as escrow person in submissions made in civil suit 5827/2001- means that any other explanation given is an eye wash .

(III) My reply to his para wise contentions is as under:-

1. In reference to his para 1, I have to state that I am his client by virtue of meeting him in presence of my auditor Mr.
Kashiparekh and had asked him to give written opinion but he did not give his opinion inspite of assurance. I furnish letter of Mr. Kashiparekh addressed to him. The way letter is addressed shows that they know each other very well and the nature of letter shows that we were meeting him to exclusion of any executive from Core group. As a part of professional conduct , it is expected of him to be loyal and give right and legal professional advice in writing when promised by him.


2. In reference to para 2 of his reply, his reply is a blatant lie
on his part that both of them were not acting as escrow,
and were not holding documents in capacity of escrows. As regards to his statement that I have not produced any documentary evidence, I would like to put it on record that I have stated in form of written
affidavit that I will furnish evidences of his involvement as escrow person at a later date. Till date he has not furnished any documentary written affidavit from Mr. Jaludndhwala, Dhanyushya, K.C. Gandhi and Mr.H. Kashiparekh as stated in my complaint and letters addressed
to him on 10-5-2002 and 6-8-2002. IN CASE HE DOES NOT TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO FURNISH COPIES OF REPLIES AND WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONS AS STATED WITHIN WEEK OF RECEIPT OF MY LETTER SENT TO HIM , YOU SHALL DEBAR HIM IMMEDIATELY. Besides, present letter is being sent to the judiciary for circulation simultaneously in view
of his nonsubmissions to file reply to the Bar council
inspite of copy of complaint marked to him in September .2002.

(2.1) It was Mr. Soparkar who drafted and prepared various memorandum of understanding as he had knowledge on taxation issues , company issues,etc.Let Jalundhwala, K.C. Gandhi, Kashiparekh file
a written affidavit in this regard and undersigned is given opportunity to cross examine them. He has already confirmed that there was joint meeting by all concerned which included the executives also.Why is he reluctant to furnish written reply of Mr.
Kashiparekh, Mr. Jalundhwala and Mr. K.C. Gandhi.as stated in my complaint letter and letters addressed to him ?

Mr. Soparkar has made contradictory statement in his reply that
a) he appeared as Senior advocate for the contesting defendants.
b) Shows that he had appeared for the original defendants 1-3 in The High Court along with Mr. Amar Bhatt .
c) had represented defendant no1.

He does not have clarity of thought at all. How he can represent Dhanyushya which is on one side of the fence
and Core health Care, Jatin Jalundhwala on the other side of the
fence . (Refer page 39 of his written submissions)
How come all these three entities unitedly did not appear in
Civil Revision Application 25 and 26. Subsequently, in the
city Civil court. All of them filed common reply only after I
wrote letters addressed to Mr. Soparkar and Mr. Kashiparekh
on 6-8-2002 which explains his SLY methods ofmanipulation
and guilty conscience. Neither did Mr. Soparkar appear nor
did Mr. Amar Bhatt appear at all but Mr. U. D. Shukla appeared in the city civil court and in the appeal from order.

Even when the Honourable Judge had given directions to furnish reply by 26th April 2002 to the city civil court. They did not comply . Both Mr. Amar Bhatt and Mr. Soparkar proceeded abroad and behaved irresponsibly to create hurdles in justice and abused process of law. You can call for the passports and ticket counterfoils verify various pertinent particulars such as visa, departure date ,etc. for both these advocates. They have tricked the courts so openly which
tarnishes the image of practicing advocates of the high court. Such sharp practices need to be curbed by taking drastic action.

(2.2) As regards to contents of Para 2.2 , the judgement was
passed adversely against the undersigned both in City Civil
court and appeal from order in the High Court has occurred
only after date of my complaint in September 2002 and
therefore is irrelevant as far as facts of my complaint against
him about his conduct. In case Mr. Soparkar was right ,he
could have stood on his own feet to defend himself instead
of taking defense of adverse judicial orders passed subsequent to my letters. The judgement would have not been adverse in case I had his written reply to the complaint submitted to the Bar Council , and copy of complaint was brought to the notice of the honorable chief justice to review the entire matter in light of my stamped affidavit.
I most humbly request that the matter is brought to the notice
of the Chief Justice that Mr. Soparkar has not furnished
information in form affidavit from Mr. Jalundhwala, Dhanyushya as referred in my letter dated 10-5-2002 and 6-8-20 02 and complaint letter lodged with Bar Council in September 2002. BESIDES, HE MAY REJOICE THAT THE MATTER IS DISMISSED BUT ON OTHER HAND HE HAS SHOULDERED THE LIABILTIES AND CONSEQUENCES ON ACCOUNT OF BANKING
FRAUD . TIMID AS HE IS, HE HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER HE CAN AFFORD TO ACCEPT BANKING FRAUD ON HIS SHOULDERS OR HE WANTS TO DISASSOCIATE INVOLVEMENT IN BANKING FRAUD BY NOTIFYING THE COURT THAT DHANYUSHYA
JALUNDHWALA, CORE HEALTH IS BEING ASKED TO PROVE THEIR OWNERSHIP AND CREATION OF CHARGE . IN CASE MR. SOPARKAR DOES NOT TAKE SUCH INITIATIVE , THEN HIS INVOLVEMENT IN BANKING FRAUD GETS CONFIRMED.


(2.3) As far as contents of his para 2.3 that I have not referred
about his role as escrow in the civil suit, appeal from order, etc he is deliberately and intentionally playing dumb.Mr .Soparkar
has not COMMENTED ON the contents of reply given by my
advocate Shri K V Shelat on 1-2-99 as referred in para 16 of
page 28 of submissions made by Mr. Soparkar . I have already
enclosed copy of the reply given by Mr. Shelat on 1-2-99 as in the submissions annexed with suit 5827/2001.Para 3 of Mr.
K.V. Shelat’s reply dated 1-2-99 reads as under: The said
MOUs …. Were handed over to the escrows consisting of Shri H. Kashiparekh …. and Shri. S. Soparkar,advocate.” Therefore
he very well knew his own presence at the time of appearing for
CRA 25 and 26 and therefore my complaint is justified.

After receipt of my letters dated 10-5-2002 and 6-8-2002 by Mr.
Soparkar , with full knowledge of Mr. Soparkar, Dhanyushya
furnished reply in last week of August 2002 to the city Civil
court through Mr. Soparkar which is reproduced as per page 92 of reply submitted Mr. Soparkar to the Bar Council showing
name of Mr. Soparkar and Mr.Kashiparkeh as escrow person.
Even page 93 also states that share certificates, transfer
deeds,etc are to be kept with Escrow. This shows that Mr.
Soparkar very well was aware and conscious of these
documents showing his name as escrow person. After going
through brief, in case he was of the opinion that he was being
falsely implicated as escrow person then he would not have
accepted the brief from Dhanyushya in CRA 25 and 26 and after
my letters on 10-5-2002 and 6-8-2002 addressed to him , he
would have taken legal action on Dhanyushya for falsely
implicating his name.as escrow person. Inspite of these
incidences , he dares to file reply in City Civil court in last
week of august 2002 on behalf of Dhanyuhsya playing innocent
and throwing mud in the eyes of Bar Council..

(2.4) I distinctly remember that I told him in the cellar of his residence that I am placing trust on both the escrow persons and the trust would not be betrayed by both of you as there are several unresolved issues . I never realized that Mr. Soparkar is a white collared thug. Mr. Soparkar and Mr. Kashiparekh was to protect both the parties as far as various issues including taxation issues were concerned by giving written legal opinion . It is already known that he is a tax advocate and persons coming to him put for consultation put implicit trust. IN CASE HE DENIES THAT THE DOCUMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN TO DHANYUSHYA , HOW HAS DHANYUSHYA ACQUIRED ALLEGED OWNERSHIP OF SHARES , PROPERTY,ETC. IN VIEW OF THEIR NAMES AS ESCROW PERSONS REFERRED IN VARIOUS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGS REFERRED ON PAGE 92-93 OF REPLY GIVEN BY MR. SOPARKAR .

I have already enclosed extract of reply given by Mr. Shelat on
1-2-99 in the submissions annexed with suit 5827/2001 and I
have already referred therein names of the escrow persons that
is Mr. Soparkar and Mr. Kashiparekhand Para 16 of page 28 of
submissions my by Mr. Soparkar.


3. This is in reference to the submissions made by Mr. Soparkar about reply given by Mr. Asok D. Shah On 7th Dec 1998 which has been misinterpreted. I have referred in my para 6 of my letter dated 10-5-2002 drawing attention of notice of ShriA.D. Shah on 14-10-98 and referring reply of K.V. Shelat’s reply on 6-11-98 ( which referred Mr. Soparkar and Mr, Kashiparekh,s name as escrow person vide para 2 of the said letter). In response to the above letter, Mr. A. D. Shah gave reply vide 7-12-98 to Mr. Shelat. The contents of Para 4 of their letter is being reproduced as under:- My client strongly resents the aspersions made against the
escrows, and it is denied that there was any meeting before the
escrows to resolve the differences and trying to take undue
advantage of my client’s acquaintance with escrows by
committing breach of trust, cheating, fraud , misrepresentation
and offences of forgery. My client also denies that they have easy and smooth access with escrows and committed breach of trust of various laws ….” Thus Mr. A.D. Shah vide his reply in para 4 of his letter dated 7-12-98confirmed the
presence of escrows consisting of Mr. Soparkar and Mr.
Kashiparekh. as referred in Mr. K.V. Shelat’s reply dated 6-
11-98. Mr. Soparkar cannot expect the contents of the letters to be reproduced in the text of the plaint when the reference has been made of letters in form of annexures to the plaint.
This is abundantly clear and there is no ambiguity or misinterpretation whatsoever. Mr. Soparkar is deliberately
diverting the matter on different lines.When Mr. Soparkar has furnished more than 100 pages , he could have produced all these correspondence the reply given so that the particularscan
be decided without wastage of time. As far as particulars of
personal reassessment orders concerned , I have made declaration on affidavit about his name being shown as escrow person in the reassessment order. The annexure shows their names as escrow persons in reassessment order.

4. This is in reference to Mr. Soparkar’s reply in para 4.
Mr. Soparkar was my advisor in income tax matter, was
holding the documents in escrow account, was involved in
Preparation and drafting of Mous , also holding in escrow jointly valuable documents, cheques,etc and therefore, he is considered to be pecuniarily interested in the matter and therefore, he did not have any right to appear in the matter. I understand that as per Bar Council rules any advocate pecuniarily interested in the matter cannot appear in the matter. The page 92 annexed by Mr. Soprkar confirms his involvement as an escrow Person between two parties holding documents on my family’s behalf with escrows as per the statement filed by Dhanyushya whom he represented.

What is relevant is his nondisclosure in CRA 25 and CRA 26
and his personal lack of character and integrity. As regards to the appearance made by my advocate , the learned judge decided to refrain from going into the details of the case and
decided that the reply be filed by Dhanyuhysa and others in the city civil court by April 26 2002. It is interesting to note that Mr. Soparkar had malafide intention and obstructed course of justice mechanism and it is necessary to note that Dhanyuhsya filed reply without documentary evidence in August 2002 and filed memorandum of understanding only in December 2002. However, they did not file any documentary evidence of ownership as referred in para 21C of pages 34 -35 of reply filed by Mr. Soparkar . This is deliberate concealment by Mr. Soparkar.

It is interesting note that fire broke out on 4th Floor of Insurance Building around 29th April 2002 where the Income tax records were housed which included records of Dhanyuhsya and Core Health Care. I had written to the auditor of Dhanyuhysa on 17th April 2002 and letters to Mr. Kashiparkeh around March 2002 . On account of fire , the documents were shifted to 6th floor by the income tax department. There was a front page page article on 7th December 2002 titled Great Bank Robbery referring Core Health care’s name and Jalundhwala’s name. On 10th December 2002 , again fire broke out and I understand most of the records were destroyed. Besides , Dhanyushya never furnished audited balance sheet of Dhanyuhysa showing ownership of shares pertaining to Rupmanglam and Flovin in the city civil court. One can appreciate that when one sees smoke at a distance one assumes fire. Till date Dhanyushya has not furnished copy of balance sheet in Appeal from Order. It does not require to much of intelligence to draw primae facie conclusions as to why Mr. Soparkar is trying to suppress material facts from being exposed.


5. Mr. Soparkar has referred in Para 5 of his reply that the
contents of the letter dated 10-5-2002 and 6-8-2002 was not
worthy of reply to the undersigned. The real reason is that he
was defenseless and he wanted to dodge the issue and
therefore he preferred to remain silent so as to protect
Dhanyushya and himself. He was scared that if he gave any
reply it could have backfired damaging him and his client.
His lack of reply reflects
his
timidity, cowardice and lack of courage to fight back the
allegations by taking legal action against me backed by the
reply of Mr. Jalundhwala and Dhanyuhsya so as to protect
his dignity, integrity and reputation. The fact is that he is
already involved in the banking fraud along with his clients
and trapped by his client to conceal their acts of banking
fraud. IN CASE, HE IS NOT PART OF BANK-FRAUD,
HE WOULD TAKE LEGAL ACTION IN THE HIGH
COURT AND FORCED THE BANK AND HIS CLIENTS
TO FURNISH ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF
OWNERSHIP OF COMPANIES,ETC to CREATE
CHARGE AS REFERRED IN CIVIL SUIT 5827/2001
AND APPEAL FROM ORDER 176/2003. HIS ULTERIOR
MOTIVES ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR. THERE IS NO NEED
TO INVEST MORE TIME ON HIS FLIMSY EXCUSES.

He is playing KARNA of Mahabharata and he is does not
want to draw lessons of wisdom OF DHARMA..
.
6. This is in reference to reply given by Mr. Soparkar in his
para 6. Mr. Soparkar has habit of accepting briefs of
clients like Core Health , Mardia Chemicals
which have been referred as cases of Great Bank Robbery by Indian Express.
This shows his social irresponsibile behaviour. For a fee he
would take any brief without taking into consideraion any
social or moral implications. This advocate can be considered
as traitor to the society. Mr. Soparkar is a tax advocate who
conducts lot of public speeches on taxation matters so that
innoncent persons get roped in and they get trapped.and thereby
he can earn large fees. Mr. Soparkar has remained silent to the
law aspects of seeking 37I permission even for the companies
involved and he has kept revenue angle totally from the national
Interest. He has fooled the judiciary which is overloaded with
many matters. Does he have courage to tell the court , that he is
confident to justify that there was no need of 37 I permission for
companies involved and justify transfer of property without 37I
and request the court to bring in the best legal minds on taxation
from the country so as to defend his stand.On behalf of the
defendants , he has been silent on this issue. I am referring
issue of pending issue of 37I opinion even as per Mr.
Jalundhwala’s handwriting annexed herewith..


7. I still assert that there is conflict of interest between
CoreHealth Care and Dhanyushya Financial which is
owned by their respective share holders. The issue of
conflict of interest are as under:-
.
a) Core Health Care has not furnished any notes that
Dhanyuhysa is being fully owned by Core Health Care.

b) Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala has been representing as
director of Dhanyuhysa and employee of Core Health Care. Mr. Jalundhwala and Dhanyuhysa knew very well that Core Health Care is a sick company and therefore , my case in City Civil Court was blessing in disguise which could have forced Core Health Care to arrange for fresh security to Global Trust Bank.

c) What stopped Mr. Soparkar to appear specifically for
Core Health Care in Civil Revision Application directly when Core Health Care was his client.


d) Why all the three entitites together did not appear on
one side in Civil Revision Application in January 2002 but joined hands and filed common reply only after my letter dated 10-5-2002 and 6-8-2002.addressed to him.

e) Why did he not take initiative to explain to the
that there is no conflict of interest when he received
copy of complaint to the Bar Council of Gujarat from the
undersigned in September 2002.

f) Mr. Jalundhwala on one hand being employee of Core
Health Care, why would he want Core Health Care to
borrow interest bearing funds for Core Health Care
especially when Core Health Care has given
non interest bearing funds over Rs 30 crores to its fully
owned subsidiary Technology Finance Ltd where
Jaludnhwala also happened to be director. Why would
chairman Mr. Handa of Core Health Care would not
want to demand funds from Jalundhwala appearing for
Technology Fiinance which were non interest bearing
loan while refusing to accept interest bearing loan
from Mr. Jalundhwala of Dhanyuhsya Financial
amounting to Rs 12.5 Crore from Global Trust Bank
which was interest bearing with interest to be borne by
Core Health Care. I being shareholder of Core Health
Care have raised this issue to Core Health Care in
notice given by me in January 2000 and Mr. A. D.
Shah who has not been able to give suitable reply on this
issue on behalf of Core Health Care.

g) why has Mr. Soparkar not furnished a joint
affidavit from Jalundhwala and Handa representing
Core Health Care and Jalundhwala of Dhanyushya and
furnish that they do not have any conflict of interest
and there is no harm In Dhanyushya and Core health
care appearing against each other in CRA 25 and 26
instead of appearing on one side of fence.. Mr. Soparkar
has not even furnished any certificate from the
the auditors of Dhanyushya and Core Health Care that
there is no conflict of interest in Dhanyushya and Core
Health Care appearing one against another to justify his
assertion.

h) Mr. Soparkar is a chartered accountant and he
was amongst first ten in the country when he graduated.
He is trying to bluff the members of Bar council in
believing his story. He is not even loyal to Core Health
Care and its shareholders, if he claims that Core Health
Care. is his client Incidently, I also happen to be a share
holder of Core Health Care too.


. 8. As referred in Para 8, Mr. Soparkar has already accepted
his fiduciary relationship with the undersigned. I
reiterate and assert that on account of various reasons
stated in my complaint letter and letters addressed to him,
documents on record, reply given by Dhanyuhsyas advocate
and reply given by my advocate, reference of his name as
escrow person in various MOUS, Mr. Soparkar has abused
process of law to create hurdles and also to camouflage
and bury his illegal acts permanently.
I humbly request to the Bar Council that Mr. Soparkar is
Put to stringent acid test immediately and his strength
of character and integrity and his professional conduct
is examined impartially , ruthlessly without and favour.
Now is the chance to debar Mr. Soparkar as he has
insulted the intelligence of members of Bar Council which
can serve lesson to other members of the Bar Council.

9. I still maintain that Mr. Soparkar has not conducted basic
inquiries of ownership with Dhanyushya regarding
ownership of Rupmanglam and Flovin alleged to
be belonging to Dhanyushya. None of his annexures
attested by him show that he has attached such
documentary evidence. It is necessary to insist that he
furnishes reply to appeal from order along with
documentary evidence Mr. Soparkar has not been able to
furnish even audited balance sheet of Dhanyushya showing
Rupmanglam and Flovin as its subsidiaries. I have
already stated that Honourable Judge in CRA decided
to straight away transfer the case back to chamber
Court and I did not have any specific information about
the case details of Core Health Care at the time
of hearing of CRA 25. In other cases where he has
represented , it has been referred that sharp practices
have been used.

Moreover it was he who has to take the initiative
to inform the honourable Judge that he is also
advocate for Core Health Care and it is he who
is appearing for Dhanyushya while Core health care
is on the other side of fence even though
Dhanyushy and Core Health Care are united. Mr. Soparkar
is throwing mud in the eyes of members of bar council
It is his act of personal cheating and deception which
is relevant and it was his responsibility to maintain
transparency . and honesty. In one of the cases, one
sitting judges stated in April 2003 that he cannot listen
to the matter as he knew the family in open court
spontaneously and requested the acting chief justice to
transfer the matter to some other judge. This is called
strength of character, honesty and transparency.

10. T his is in reference to the comments made in Para 10
of his reply. I want to state very clearly that Mr. Soparkar
that Mr. Soparkar is a blatant liar stating that he is not
involved in the matter at all. Mr. Soparkar has not
obtained written affidavit from Mr. Jalundhwala and
Dhanyuhsya Financial Pvt Ltd as referred in my letters
dated 10-5-2002 and 6-8-2002 addressed to him. Any
other person would have the courage to take direct legal
action against the undersigned when his reputation was
at stake. In case his name was falsely implicated as an
escrow person, he would have taken the initiative to
draw the attention of the city civil court and high
court after receipt of my letters addressed to him
which he has not done and therefore, he also becomes
accomplice to the banking fraud committed by his
clients – that is Dhanyushya Jalundhwala and Core
Health Care. His INACTION depicts very clearly his
guilty conscience.


Kindly note that I was put on police remand for 5 days
In Navrang pura Police station in December 99 after
I lodged complaint letter to Global Trust Bank in July
1999 by Mr. Jalundhwala in view of papers being handed
over by Mr. Soparkar and Mr. Kashiparekh in September
alleging my resignation in 1996. In September 97,winding up
petition for Core Health Care was being heard in the High
Court where Mr. Soparkar appeared in the case on behalf of
Core Health Care. In view of police remand, seeds of
disintegration in my family were sown by these two gentlemen
on account of terror, fear and insecurity on account of

involving police. The sole objective was to get my approvals so
as to remove banking fraud. I am exposing his darker side to
limelight. From the information I gathered , they had
sought help from authorities in Gandhinagar
so as to subject me to all sort of torture and one of
executives of Core Health care , Mr. Biren Shah was
asked to pursue constant follow up action with police
authorities at the time of police remand. These are the
methods being employed by such advocates and chartered
accountants through corridors of power indirectly.
Such practices are not only dangerous but it can be used
by some advocates on other advocates or their friends to
earn fees. I understand that one of the high court
advocates in another case had to flee from Ahmedabad on
account of police. I was advised to keep low profile as
brother of Handa happened to be the son-in-law of Vice
President of India prevailing in 1999. THERE WAS NO
HOPE FOR ME TO SURVIVE WHILE I WAS IN
POLICE CUSTODY. AS THEY WANTED TO
SUBJECT ME FOR EXTENSION OF DEMAND TILL I
SUCCUMB TO THEIR WISHES. ONLY GOD SENT
EXTERNAL HELP- WHO HAD COURAGE TO
QUESTION AUTHORITIES BY WHICH I WAS SET
FREE FROM BEING SUBJECTED FROM FURTHER
REMAND. IT WAS BIREN SHAH AND VIVEKA
RAVAL OF CORE HEALTH CARE WHO
FOLLOWED UP PERSISTENTLY WITH POLICE
TO SUBJECT ME TO VARIOUS TORTURE METHODS.
MR. SOPARKAR KNOWS WHO IS THE PERSON AND HE
KNOWS THAT HE CANNOT TAKE DIRECT ACTION BUT
MR. SOPARKAR WANTS TO DO IT THROUGH
OTHERS INCLUDING BAR COUNCIL.

I appeal before to the members of Bar council that deep
thought is given to such practices as such practices
can be detrimental to maintain social harmony.

11. Mr. Soparakar has referred in his para 11 of my strained
relationship with my brother by misquoting personal
differences with my brother. Both Mr. Soparkar and Mr.
Kashiparekh played pivotal role starting from September
97 behind my back to scare , persuade my brother and
my parents by making parents accept payment in Sept 97
and filing papers for alleged resignation in 1997 Mr. Soparkar
represented Core Health care when winding up petition
was filed in the court and he appeared for them to save

them. When the matter was being heard around Sept 97
in the High court as per front page articles in press.
One can visualize ulterior motives of Mr. Soparkar
and this could not have coincidently in Sept 97.
Besides, in case , he was not an escrow person, then how
was he able to keep track of news item appearing in
December 98. My family and the undersigned attended
had attended engagement ceremony in January 98 which
reflects that the social l relations with my brother were
normal till then. It was through the investigation wing
of Income tax department,that these escrow persons
started pressurizing me so that I succumb to their
demand. How come under the same MOU for my
brother and my self , the shares are alleged to be shown
as transfer in 1996 and 1998?

12. As referred in para 11 of my submissions addressed to
you in September 2002, Mr. Soparkar has deliberately
and intentionally evaded to furnish written affidavit of
Dhanyuhysa Financial Pvt Ltd, Mr. Jatin Jalundhwala,
Mr. Hemant Kashiparkeh, and Mr. K.C. Gandhi. I have
also referred the same in my letters addressed
to him on 10-5-2002 and 6-8-2002..In case he does not
furnish written affidavit from the above persons
based on the conents of my letter dated 10-5-2002
AND 6-8-2002 , the reply given by him has no
significance in searching for truth about his involvement
as one of the escrow persons. I humbly request you
to draw the attention of The Honurable Chief Justice of
Gujarat High Court to reexamine the matter of Appeal
From Order 176/2003. All I can say is that this matter
requires immediate follow up reply and it is expected
that Mr. Soparkar furnishes reply to you as soon as
he receives copy from the undersigned.

I still reserve right to bring forth more evidences,
explanations, once you obtain his reply in form
of stamped written affidavit before a notary in
presence of two senior advocates as witnesses.

12. As an abundant precaution on my observation of
Mr.Soparkar and Mr. Kashiparekh being sly persons
having character of Shakuni, and to safeguard any acts
of atrocities directly or indirectly through any agency
including the income tax department by Mr. Soparkar,
I have no option but to release the contents of this letter to
Media simultaneously so as to insulate myself from their
acts of violence and torture in any form and I sincerely
hope that the Bar Council takes this matter very seriously
and accord top most priority by subjecting Mr. Soparkar
to grueling investigation without extending any favour.
Mr. Soparkar is likely to exert tremendous pressure on the
committee members to free himself as he has tendency of
doing it as he has such habit.

13. It would not be out of place to mention that when person
like Mr. Soparkar is given a conscious shock, his false
mask and ego disappears after a while and the person
is being given opportunity to transform himself and
it can be rebirth for him and his vision and attitude
towards life takes a radical change and such a person
has a potential to be beneficial for
humanitarian cause provided he learns to swallow bitter
pill now. He knows what happened to Kapil Dev on TV .
Classical mythological story of saint Narad turning
Valia Lootera into Rishi Valmiki who wrote epic of
Ramayana, Kalidas, Gandhiji, Chanakya are examples.
One is just helping Mr. Soparkar to transform himself
from Ravana to Rama. Such acts initiated by the Bar
Council are acts of compassion for Mr. Soparkar. Mr.
Soparkar would be able to recoup any loss by little bit
of hard work in case he has sense of foresight in him.
Once his reputation to the outside world gets tarnished on
account of his involvement in the banking fraud, he and
family would not be able to digest the consequences and
would not be able to recoup losses. I sincerely hope that Bar Council examines the matter from this
perspective and takes swift and drastic action of
temporarily suspending Mr. Soparkar. I humbly
request that Bar Council makes request to the
Honourable Chief Justice of Gujarat within a week of
receipt of this letter for reviewing and probing the matter
in depth by calling the defendants in person as Mr.
Soparkar has deceived every one. Still , I am
giving him opportunity to save his face .

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

P . S. Mody

Encl: 1) Letter from Kashiparekh addressed to Mr. Soparkar.
(note: Late shri Parbhulal referred in the letter is my
maternal grandfather and my mother happens to be the
only daughter) Refer Para III(1)-PAGE 2
2) Letter addressed to Mr. Soparkar on 6-8-02 by the
undersigned. Relevant portion pasted of correspondence
between A.D. Shah and Mr. K.V. Shelat, and note in
reassessment order about role of Mr. Kashiparekh as
escrow person. REFER PARA II ©-PAGE 2
3) Handwriting of Jalundhwala showing presence of escrow
And reference for 37 I opinion from Mr. Soparkar.
REFER PARA III6)-PAGE 9, PARA III(12)-PAGE 12
4) Handwriting of K. C. Gandhi regarding valuation of shares and presence of escrow. REFER PARA III(12)-PAGE 14
5) Extract of letter addressed to Mr. Soparkar dated 10-5-02.
REFER PARA III(2.3)-PAGE 5
6) Evidence confirming Soparkar involvement. REFER PAGE
III(2.1)-PAGE 3
7) SUMMARY OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE AGAINST
SOPARKAR INVOLVEMENT.

( This is not exhaustive list of evidences . )

Copy marked to:- 1) The Bar Council of India
2) Mr. Saurabh N. Soparkar
3) To news media