[Resolved]  Basil International Ltd — mis maturity

This is a very critical condition of the company that they can't do the maturity. It is not a very simple matter. Goverment, local administration should take strict action against this company otherwise this company take everything from the investors.

THIS COMPANY'S BUSSINESS MUST BE STOPPED.

Dear,
Why the management of this co is not given the maturity of Tinsukia Branch / Ledo Branch / Naharkatia branch / & Dibrugarh Branch. The TOTAL MATURITY OF THESE BRANCHES IS 22 CRORES. HOW CAN WE SAY IT IS A GOOD COMPANY. THE COMPANIES INTENTION IS NOT GOOD. 22 CRORES PENDING MATURITY IS NOT A JOCKS. THE MAIN CALPIT IS MR NAYAN BHATTACHARJEE. HE WANTS TO STOP THE BUSINESS OF THESE AREAS IN ASSAM. WHY HE TREAT LIKE THIS, WE THE AGENT OF THESE CO. THE COMMISSION IS PENDING SINCE JULY 2008 TO SEPTEMBER 2009 IN OUR MATHER BRANCH TINSUKIA (ASSAM). DEAR, IF YOU WANTS TO KNOW THEN PLEASE COME IN ASSAM & VISIT ALL THIS 4 BRANCHES YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE PROBLEMS. NOW WE ARE GOING TO SURRENDER THROUGH THE MEDIA. ABOUT 80, 000 FIELD WORKERS OF THESE AREAS GOING TO SURRENDER IN FRONT OF VARIOUS NEWS CHENNELS.

joining

All the field workers of India just read it cearfully because we are suffering. We the field workers of Assam Tinsukia Branch, Ledo Branch, Naharkatia Branch & Dibrugarh Branch. The problems are created by Management Site Specially Mr Nayan Bhattacharjee. the G.M. of this company. Before 5 years. After 5 Years the Picture of this affected Branches is very sad. One upon a time this 4 Branches business was more then 7 (Seven) CRORE. now the business is 2 (Crore). Because the Faltu Management wants to closed the 4 branches with out given the MATURITY. The total 4 Branches MATURITY is 38 (THIRTY EIGHT) Crore. it will be increase more then 90 Crore. how can they solve it. We are afread for this.
We wants to work for the help of our Customers & Field. CRORE & CRORE ghotala are going on in Management Site. The intention of Management is very very Bad. we told to the G.M. Mr. Nayan Bhattacharjee please co-operate with us by giving Re-investment scheme. but they Didnot.
We now start Battle aganist the Corrupted Asansol Division.
If you wants to help us please come and see all the record of our hand.
We know the problems come to your site also for the BATTLE.

My sister some Monthly deposit for 3 years in previous year 2008 December matured
but no give the matured amount in present.Total matured amount is approx.5000/-
Basil International Ltd.in Tinsukia Branch Agent Name is Anil Sah.

Dear Investors / Field Agents,

I have been appointed as Director of Basil International Limited in the month of December 2009. Please inform me by mail, if any dispute arises. My email Id is indranath.[protected]@gmail.com.

I will try my best to solve your problem.


Indranath Biswas
Director
Basil International Limited
Dated: 08/04/2010.

CHEATING WITH PEOPLE OF ASSAM
It is very disappointment for us & the people of Assam that the Asansol Division have no response after given a Press notification to DAINIK JANAMBHUMI on 10/02/2010 and again on 28/03/2010 by your Asansol Division to payment the maturity of all product card & Preference share to the consumers within 30 days from 28/03/2010. The 30 days is already over on 30/04/2010. Today is 14th june 2010 no payment was made by you till now. Is this your comitment to the people of Assam. You are cheating with all the family of the Basil International ltd. you are totaly froud & and also misguide the honest field workers of BASIL INTERNATIONAL LTD. FOR TRUTH SEE THE CHEATING WITH PEOPLE OF ASSAM PAPER CUTTING STATEMENT.

Bsil is totaly fraud company. Pls don't invest any body in this company. People of Asam, West bengal and orissa are facing so many problems and not geting their maturity money.

Pls advise us delhi office details

sir, I'm Bhupen Das Son of Nripen Das Residential Add New Hasimara Rly colony Po Hasimara fashing the same problem of meturity . I am working from Alipurduar Branch & Birpara Branch my code No[protected]E . Plz tell me What I will do againts this company.

Dear friends, pls read this article up to end. Its a background details of P.P.S Sethi...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
18. CRL.M.C. 2453/2004 and CRL.MA 8240-41/2004

ADITYA MADAN and ORS. ...
Petitioners
Through Mr. Ajay Sangwan, Advocate.

versus

STATE ...
Respondent
Through Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for State.
Mr. Rahul Mehra, Advocate for complainant.


17. CRL.M.C. 2084/2004 and CRL.MA 6880/2004

CHAND KUMAR VERMA ...
Petitioner
Through Mr. Rahul Mehra, Advocate.

versus

P.P.S.SETHI and ORS.
... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajay Sangwan, Advocate for R.1 and 2.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for R-3/State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

O R D E R
20.02.2008

1. These two matters arise out of common set of facts and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.

2. There appears to be a long history to this litigation. Chand Kumar Verma, the Petitioner No.1 in Criminal Miscellaneous (Case) No. 2084 of 2004 claims to have been introduced to the Directors of Versatile Group of Companies including the Petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous (Case) No. 2453 of 2004, i.e., Aditya Madan, Petitioner No.1 and Dr. P.P.S. Sethi, the Petitioner No.2 some time in early 1999. It is stated that initially the monies invested by Chand Kumar Verma with the Versatile Resorts and Garden International Ltd., (hereafter`Company?) was returned with interest. But later in May 2000 when certain post- dated cheques were deposited they were dishonoured. It is stated that on 6th May, 2000 a demand draft for the sum of Rs. 9 lakhs was issued by P.P.S. Sethi against the five post-dated dishonoured cheques in favour of the son of Chand Kumar Verma. P.P.S. Sethi had requested Chand Kumar Verma to return the five post-dated cheques with the further promise that Rs. 1 lakh towards interest would be sent within the next fifteen days.


3. It is stated by Mr. Chand Kumar Verma that he was threatened with dire
consequences if he took any legal action against P.P.S. Sethi and others. A case of cheating was registered against P.P.S. Sethi, Aditya Madhan and the Directors of Versatile Group and a FIR No. 669/2001 was registered at Police Station Connaught Place under Section 420/506/120-B IPC on 19th December, 2001. Another case was registered on 23rd December, 2002 in FIR No. 876/2002. On 30th March, 2002 Chand Kumar Verma gave a complaint to the police about the threats extended to his life by P.P.S. Sethi asking him to withdraw FIR No. 669/2001. On 25th January, 2003 P.P.S. Sethi and Arun Madan were granted bail in FIR No. 669/2001 in view of the settlement between Chand Kumvar Verma and them. However, according to Chand Kumar Verma the threats to him and his family from P.P.S. Sethi, Arun Madan, Aditya Madan and others continued and he made complaints to the police on10th February, 2003 and 13th February, 2003.

4. Immediately relevant for the present proceedings is the alleged incident
which took place on 18th March, 2003. According to Chand Kumar Verma, he and his son Rajiv were going to the Crime Branch, Amar Colony for a case in his Maruti car at 11.40 am when the car reached in front of the Frank Anthony School it got punctured and so his son pulled over. Meanwhile Chand Kumar Verma was strolling on the road. It is alleged that the Maruti car stopped which has four passengers stopped near him. The car was driven by Aditya Madan and Dr. P.P.S. Sethi sitting next to him. Thereafter, in the words of Chand Kumar Verma ; ?The two instantly came out of the car and Dr.P.P.S.Sethi told a lot has happened. Will you take your case back or not? And Madan started saying what are you saying throw it on him and Sethi took out the bottle and raised it to throw at me, however, I saved myself with my hand. As a result of which contents of the bottle fell on my left hand and left leg which left the burning sensation. When I called my son both the persons ran away in their car and PCR took me to the hospital where you took my statement. Dr. P.P Sethi and Aditya Madan had caused hurt by throwing burn inflicting substance on me and I cannot also identify the other two persons who were sitting on the backseat of the car if brought in front of me. Legal action be taken against them.?

The above statement was made to the police which was in the nearby police van which got a wireless message.

5. On 26th March, 2003 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Delhi who was considering an earlier complaint by Chand Kumar Verma was told by of this date of incident. The learned MM then passed an order observing that prima facie an offence under Section 307 IPC should have been invoked and not one under Section 326 in view of the previous complaints lodged by the petitioner before the police as well as the court.

6. On 7th May, 2003 the anticipatory bail application of P.P.S. Sethi and Aditya Madan was rejected by the learned ASJ by observing that if they were granted anticipatory bail they were likely to hamper the investigation.

7. Thereafter, on 2nd September, 2003, a charge sheet was filed in FIR No.
257/2003. The said charge sheet detailed the steps taken by the police after
receiving the complaint from Chand Kumar Verma as under:
?Under the facts and circumstances MLC and injuries crime under section 326/34 is found to have been committed and the case is sent by Constable Suresh Kumar no. 2089/80 for registration of case in the police station. Then ASI started the investigation during which the ASI made the site plan of the spot and the acid which fell on the road because of the bottle breaking was scrapped and taken into custody alongwith pieces of broken bottle and some acid which was there in the broken bottle was collected in the small bottle and statement were recorded of witnesses. SI Bhopal Singh did rest of the investigation and during the investigation SI took statement and search for the accused persons and later on investigation was done by SI Anil Kumar and SI took the custody of MLC of Chand Kumar Verma which was resulted as simple injury by acid burn and for section of law to be applied took the legal opinion of the prosecution branch and on report of MLC it suggested offence under section 324/34 IPC only though the case has been registered under section 326/34 IPC. Accordingly section of law can be changed according to the MLC and sections were changed from 326 to 324 IPC after
opinion of the prosecution branch. Aditya Madan son of Arun Madan r/o 106D, Sunder Apartments, Pashchim Vihar, Delhi and Dr.P.P.S.Sethi son of Ram Singh Sethi r/o 2248 Rajaji Puram, Lucknow were arrested and statement were recorded. And the exhibits were sent for FSL report for which the report is not ready and it will be submitted in Court the moment the same is received. As per investigation till now and on statement of witnesses result of MLC proves are available to file the challan under section 324/34 IPC against Aditya Madan and Dr.P.P.S. Sethi. The court is requested that the accused be summoned by notice and witnesses be summoned by summon and the case be disposed of.?

8. Although the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 324 read
with 34 IPC, when the matter was taken up by the learned MM he formed an opinion that a prima facie under Section 307 read with 34 IPC was made out and accordingly by the order dated 2nd April, 2004 he directed Aditya Madan and P.P.S. Sethi to be summoned for the said offence.

9. The subsequent application filed by the accused for recall of the order was
dismissed on 30th August, 2004

10. Crl.M.C. 2453 of 2004 was thereafter filed on 5th October, 2004 seeking the quashing of the FIR No.257 of 2003, order dated 2nd April, 2004 and consequent proceedings. On 7th October, 2004 this Court stayed the further proceedings before the trial court.

11. Meanwhile, on 30th April, 2004 the learned ASJ granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners by the following order:
?Both the applicants were initially released on bail because they were allegedly involved in case under section 324/34 IPC which happens to be a bailable offence. Now the ld. MM has taken cognizance of an offence on the basis of prima facie evidence under section 307/34 IPC. This has resulted into filing of this application because the offence under section 307 IPC is non bailable and exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Under the facts and circumstances of this case no purpose will be solved if the accused persons are kept in custody or are forced to be kept in custody. Hence the application is allowed in the event of arrest, they be released on bail on their furnishing Personal Bond in the sum of Rs. 15, 000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Link MM/Duty MM.?

12. Aggrieved by the grant of anticipatory bail, Chand Kumar Verma has filed the connected Criminal Miscellaneous (Case) No. 2084 of 2004

13. The counsel for the Petitioners, Aditya Madan and P.P.S. Sethi in support of the prayer for quashing of the FIR No. 257 of 2003 urged that notwithstanding the filing of the charge sheet, this Court should entertain the present petition since they were aggrieved by the order dated 2nd April, 2004 passed by the learned MM taking cognizance of the offence under Section 307 IPC although the charge sheet itself was filed only for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. His main contention was that the learned MM could not have taken cognizance on the basis of a document which has not been relied upon by the prosecution itself.

14. This Court is unable to agree with the learned counsel for the Petitioners. The order dated 2nd April, 2004 passed by the learned MM specifically refers to the CFSL report which showed that the material used for causing injury was sulphuric acid. The CFSL report formed part of the documents tendered along with the charge sheet. It was open to the learned MM to rely upon on such a document to form an opinion and take cognizance of the offence under Section 307.

15. It is then argued that these disputes were of a civil nature concerning non- payment of monies; that even earlier the closure report had been filed in one of the FIRs and that the present proceedings were mala fide since the complainant was abusing the process of law by repeatedly filing such complaints.
16. While it is true that the closure report has been filed in one of the FIRs,
the other FIR which has been registered against these petitioners is still
pending. It is, therefore, not possible to agree that on the same set of events
more than one FIR has been registered. Further the present FIR relates to a
particular incident of alleged attack on Chand Kumar Verma by the petitioners by throwing a bottle of acid. This is certainly not the subject matter of the FIR, that still pending consideration.

17. All the grounds that the Petitioners may have to show that no offence is
made out, can be considered by the trial court at the time of framing of
charges. If they are aggrieved by the order of framing charges, they they still
be entitled to seek other appropriate remedies. In any event the contentions
urged raise triable issues which cannot be determined in a petition under
Section 482 CrPC.

18. In the considered view of this Court, no ground is made for exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge sheet or the FIR.

19. The petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 7th October, 2004 stands vacated.

20. The petitioners are on anticipatory bail pursuant to the order dated 30th
April, 2004 passed by the learned ASJ. The Petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial court on 10th March, 2008 and seek regular bail. If an application for regular bail is made on or before that date, it would be
immediately taken up for consideration by the court either on the same day or soon thereafter as soon as possible. The anticipatory bail granted by the
learned ASJ will extend till 10th March, 2008. In view of the above order, the order dated 30th April, 2004 passed by the learned ASJ granting anticipatory bail does not call for any interference since in any way this would come to an end on 10th March, 2008.

21. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed with the above directions.

22. A certified copy of this order will be delivered to the trial court within
five days from today.

23. Trial court record, if requisitioned be sent back immediately.


S. MURALIDHAR, J.
FEBRUARY 20, 2008


ak
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1513098/

Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 22:32
MCA orders SFIO to probe five firms for duping investors
MCA orders SFIO probe against five companies for duping investors, reports Malvika Jain of TV18.

MCA orders Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to probe against five companies for duping investors, reports Malvika Jain of TV18.

Five companies, Basil International, Basil Express, Vamshi Chemicals, Nixcil Pharmacutical and Appeline Cosmetics will be probed by the SFIO. These companies have been raising public deposits under the garb of private placements.

These companies have not been adhering to the private placement norms, they have issued no advertisement and till March 2010 they have raised funds to the tune of Rs 1, 360 crore from more than 50 people, and even the principle amount has not been returned to many investors on maturity.

Interestingly, all of these five companies belong to the same group, where most of the directors are the same and some even have the same registered address. Letters sent by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) to these companies have returned undelivered stating that these companies do not exist on the mentioned addresses.

SFIO is now going to look into allegations of money laundering, misappropriation of funds, violating the private placement provisions of the Companies Act and other discrepancies which it may find.