Pune, Feb. 15 -- Prime accused Sheetal Tejwani has blamed Amadea Enterprises LLP of a "systematic and calculated pattern of concealment" in connection with the Mundhwa land deal, alleging that the firm and its designated partner deliberately suppressed material documents to mislead the court. In a detailed affidavit filed on February 5 before the Pune court, a copy of which was reviewed by Hindustan Times, Tejwani stated that despite being in exclusive possession, custody and control of all records governing the land and the disputed transaction, including relevant orders of the Bombay High Court, Amadea Enterprises failed to disclose crucial material without offering any explanation. The case relates to the alleged illegal sale of 41 acres of state government land in Mundhwa, originally belonging to the Botanical Survey of India, to Amadea Enterprises LLP. Late deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar's son, Parth, is one of the partners in Amadea Enterprises LLP. The affidavit names designated partner Digvijay Patil, alleging that the non-disclosure was deliberate. Parth, the affidavit notes, is the majority partner in Amadea Enterprises. The filing is Tejwani's response to a civil suit instituted by Amadea Enterprises in December last year, seeking cancellation of the sale deed related to the Mundhwa land. The suit was filed by Patil before the Pune Senior Division court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, naming Tejwani as a respondent. According to the affidavit, the allegedly suppressed material includes the Power of Attorney executed in 2021, correspondence with statutory and revenue authorities, applications, representations, payment records, internal communications, and documents reflecting the firm's continued involvement and decision-making in the transaction. Despite exclusive control over these records, Tejwani said, the firm and its designated partner have maintained "unexplained silence". "This silence, when read with the allegations made against me, entitles the court to draw an adverse inference that the suppressed material would have operated decisively against the firm," the affidavit states. Tejwani alleged that the civil suit was not a bona fide invocation of the court's jurisdiction, but a "calculated, convenience-driven exercise" aimed at retrospectively shifting responsibility and insulating the firm and its partner from the legal consequences of a transaction that was, at all material times, conceived, structured and supervised under their control. Describing Amadea's conduct as a "classic case of approbation and reprobation", she claimed that while the transaction promised commercial benefit, the firm exercised complete dominion and decision-making authority. However, once the deal attracted public scrutiny and potential legal exposure, the firm allegedly sought to disown its actions and place the entire burden of liability on her. Tejwani asserted that she acted strictly within the authority conferred upon her and as per instructions issued by the firm and its designated partner, and is now being projected as a "convenient fall person" for decisions that were, in reality, initiated and controlled by the plaintiff itself. Such attempts to invert roles after public scrutiny amount to an abuse of the court's process, the affidavit contends. Referring specifically to the 2021 Power of Attorney, Tejwani said the document constitutes the governing charter of the parties' relationship in respect of the land transaction. Its omission from the plaint, she alleged, was deliberate, as disclosure would have undermined the firm's claim that she was the source of authority and initiative. Calling the omissions "deliberate and calculated", Tejwani urged the court to reject or dismiss the suit at the threshold for suppression of material facts, false and misleading pleadings, distortion of chronology and abuse of process. She also sought directions for initiating proceedings under Sections 227, 228, 229, 236 and 237 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against those responsible for authorising and prosecuting the allegedly false pleadings. Attempts to contact Parth Pawar and Digvijay Patil for comment were unsuccessful....