Recovery Details
Email recovered from Reena Mehrotra's work laptop (seized 8 March 2025 under court order) via forensic image examination. Message found in "Sent" folder — not deleted, not archived. Sent from personal Gmail account (r.mehrotra.personal@gmail.com) using a browser on the work device. Full metadata on file. Message dated 2 March 2025 at 23:14 IST.
Email — Recovered Content
Fwd: Re: Matter 112 — Arguments — PLEASE DO NOT ATTRIBUTE
Rajesh,
As discussed — attached is the full written argument for the admissibility challenge in Matter 112. You can use it as-is or adapt as needed. As always, please do not attribute. If anyone asks, your team drafted it independently.
The payment of ₹80,000 through the usual arrangement is fine. I saw it come through last week. Thank you for that.
This is the third set I have done for you this year. I expect we can continue this arrangement — I have sight of a few more matters where I can be useful. You'll understand why I prefer to keep our communication off the firm systems.
Delete after reading.
— R
📎
Matter_112_Admissibility_Arguments_FINAL.docx (44 KB) — attachment hash verified, copy on file
Identity Verification
| Field | Details |
|---|
| Sender Gmail | r.mehrotra.personal@gmail.com — Google account KYC recovery number matches Reena Mehrotra's registered mobile |
| Recipient Gmail | rajesh.sharma.sp@gmail.com — confirmed as personal email of Rajesh Sharma, founding partner, Sharma & Partners LLP, Pune (public bar registration records) |
| Device | Reena Mehrotra's work laptop — HP EliteBook, serial FA2025-RM-0044 |
| Browser fingerprint | Chrome v.122 — consistent with installed browser on seized laptop |
Bar Council Violation Assessment
VIOLATION 1 — Conflict of Interest / Ghostwriting for Opposing Counsel: Reena Mehrotra was a partner at Desai & Associates. Sharma & Partners is opposing counsel in at least one active matter where Desai & Associates represents a client. Preparing legal arguments for opposing counsel in exchange for payment constitutes a conflict of interest and a breach of professional conduct rules under the Bar Council of India Rules, Chapter II, Rule 33.
VIOLATION 2 — Concealment: The instruction "please do not attribute" and the use of personal Gmail to avoid firm systems demonstrates deliberate concealment. The instruction to "delete after reading" further demonstrates awareness that the conduct is improper.
This email, combined with the financial trail (E08, E14), and the forged authorisation (E15), represents the full picture of what Vikram Desai had assembled in his desk note (E09) — and why Reena Mehrotra could not allow him to make his planned call the following morning.