[Resolved]  Morepen Laboratories — ROC JALANDHAR CHEATED MOREPEN DEPOSITORS

PAST: FD HOLDERS CHEATED BY MOREPEN LABOROTORIES LIMITED

PRESENT: MOREPEN FD HOLDERS NOW CHEATED BY ROC JALANDHAR AND RD MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS

ROC JALANDHAR AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR ( NORTHERN REGION) NOIDA FAILED TO FILE THE AFFIDAVIT FOR OBJECTIONS WITH THE HIGH COURT SHIMLA DESPITE THE FACT THAT MORE THAT FIVE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THEM. AS A RESULT, THE SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT PASSED BY JUST 300 DEPOSITORS OUT OF THE 85000 DEPOSITORS HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE COURT ON 4TH AUGUST 2009.

THE COMPANY HAS BEEN IN DEFAULT SINCE 2003 AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING IS OVER RS 200 CRORE.

AS PER THE SCHEME, 25% OF THE PRINCIPLE AND WHOLE OF THE ACCUMMULATED INTEREST HAS BEEN WAIVED OFF. THIS AMOUNT COMES TO WHOPPING 95 CRORES.

FOR THE REMAINING 75% OF THE PRINCIPLE AMOUNT , THE DEPOSITORS HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED EQUITY SHARES @11.32 PER SHARE IN THE BOD MEETING HELD ON 12TH AUGUST 2009 WHEREAS THE MARKET RATE ON THE SAME DATE WAS JUST RS.5.60 ON NSE.

THE COMPANY HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO THE SCHEME BY INFORMING THE SEBI ON 12TH AUGUST2009. COPY OF THE COURT ORDER IS ENCLOSED AS TAKEN FROM THE ROC JALANDHAR SITE.

THIS IS A CHEATING WITH THE DEPOSITORS AND THE ROC DR RAJ SINGH AND THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS HAS JUST FAILED TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS.

PREVIOUSLY, THE MINISTRY HAD TAKEN ACTION BY FILING VARIOUS CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AGAINST THE DIRECTORS AND THE COMPANY. THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION BY SERIOUS FRAUD AND INVESTIGATION OFFICE WHICH TOO HAD FILED CASES OF CHEATING FRAUD ETC.

ALL THE ACTION AND EFFORTS SO FAR TAKEN BY THE MINISTRY HAS GONE TO DRAINS.

BY THIS SERIOUS FAULT BY NOT PUTTING ACROSS ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE COURT, THE GOVERNMENT IS LIKELY OF FAIL IN THE PROSECUTIONS SO FAR FILED BY ROC. IT IS ALSOP LEARNT THE ROC JALANDHAR HAS ALSO FORGOTTEN THE PROSECUTION AND NONE OF ITS OFFICERS HAVE ATTENDED THE CASES AT THE COURT OF CJM NOR THE CASE OF FD SCHEME WAS ATTENDED BY ROC. HE WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURT WHEN THE SCHEME WAS APPROVED.

THIS IS A DELIBERATE ACTION TO HELP THE COMPANY BY DR.RAJ SINGH ROC JALANDHAR

THE FD HOLDERS ARE SURPRISED TO SEE AS TO WHY NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED ON THE FOLLOWING :

WHY WAIVER OF 25% PRINCIPAL
WHY WAIVER OF WHOLE OF THE INTEREST
WHY NO IMMIDIATE PAYMENT IN CASH TO DEPOSITORS
WHY NO PROVISION HARD PRESSED DEPOSITORS LIKE SENIO CITIZENS, LADIES, SICK DEPOSITRS ETC.
WHY CONVERSION OF DEPOSITS INTOI EQUITY AT A RATE OF 11.32 PAISE PER SHARE WHEN THE MARKET RATE IS LESS THAN 5 TO 7 RUPEES.
WHY ONLY 300 DEPOSITORS ATTENDED TH MEETING OUT OF 8500 DEPOSITORS.
IN NUTSHELL THE DEPOSITORS CAN ONLY HOPE TO GET 25 % THEIR PRINCIPAL THAT TOO AFTER INCURRING COST ON DEMAT ACCOUNTS SELLING IN THE MARKET ETC AND WHO KNOWS THAT WITH SELLING PRESSURE THE RATE STILL GETS DOWN TO LESS THAN A RUPEE.
THE DEPOSITORS HAVE BEEN LOOTED OF THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY .
WHY THE ROC FAILED TO FIGHT THE CASE AND EXPOSE THE COMPANY DIRECTORS.
NOW I URGE UPON THE FELLOW DEPOSIT HOLDERS TO RAISE THEIR VOICE AND ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO PUNISH THE GUILTY OFFICER DR, RAJ SINGH ROC JALANDHAR
THE FOLLOWING ACTION POINTS ARE SUGGESTED :
SPREAD THIS MESSAGE TO FELLOW DEPOSIT HOLDERS . MAKE A CHAIN . FORWORD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR KNOWN DEPOSIT HOLDERS.
FILE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE RTI APPLICATION WITH MINISTRY AT 5TH FLOOR , "A" WING SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI AND THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ( NORTH) ADDRESSES GIVEN IN WWW.MCA.GOV.IN
SEND EMAILS TO SECERATARY MCA AND ALL OTHER OFFICERS, ROC'S RD'S AND OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS TO EXPOSE THE GUILTY OFFICERS EMAIL ADDRESSES GIVEN ON WWW.MCA.GOV.IN AND THE WWW.SEBI.GOV.IN AND WWW.CVC.NIC.IN
ASK WHAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE MINISTRY AGAINST THESE GUILTY OFFICERS .
INDERPARKASH SINGH
Was this information helpful?
No (0)
Yes (0)
Aug 14, 2020
Complaint marked as Resolved 
Complaint comments 

Comments

IT APPEARS THAT THE GOVT. IS HAND INGLOVE WITH THE COMPANY, HENCE THE COMPANY HAS BEEN ABLE TO CHEAT SO MANY INVESTORS ON SUCH A LARGE SCALE. GOVT. HAS BEEN BIG CLAIMS OF PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE DEPOSITORS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHEREAS SILENTLY IT IS HELPING SUCH DEFAUSTERS TO RUN AWAY WITH THE PUBLIC MONEY. IT IS VERY SAD TO EXPECT SUCH A TREATMENT FROM GOVT. WHO HAS BEEN MAKING BIG CLAIMS. WE ALL HAVE TO FIGHT TOGETHER
kind attention deupty registrar of companies.this is with reference to your notice legal/co.no.3803/02/2009/01 to m/spearl cutters pvt.ltd. 374sector30 a chandigarh ut.as this is residential address, and i am residing at this place for the last twenty years and no companies office is located at this address, you are requested to kindly rectify your record
I think it is very importent to bring the fact of "unfir trade practice" on the part of the authority of Morpen Laboratories Ltd. The Application form for FDR and the trams and conditions attached to such application was all along in violation of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 [Rules. 3, 6, 8A & 11] and also de hors the stipulated norms of the Non-Banking Financial Companies Acceptance Deposits (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998 [Rules. 4(3), 4(7), 4(10), 4 (12), 4 (15)]. In terms of Rule 3 of Non-Banking Financial and Miscellaneous Non-Banking Companies (Advertisement) Rules, 1977 every NBFC is required to publish advertisement for inviting deposit informing certain compulsory things, i.e. the deposit was not guranted by Reserve Bank, deposite was unsequired and ranking pari passu with other unsecured liabilities, etc. The Application forms printeted on the behest of the company were also without the particulars to be specified in the application under the stipulated norms, i.e.the deposit was not guranted by Reserve Bank, credit rating, right of the deposit hodler to approch Consumer Form in case of any deficiency by the company, address of CLBs and the right of the depositors to approach CLB, essential declaration as prescribed, etc. The Fixed Deposit Receipts were not with full details of date of deposit, the word "per annum" at the colum of inter rate, deposit was not calculated on and from the date of realisation, etc. The date of some FDRs are more prior to the date of acceptance of the deposits. Some FDRs were issued beyond the stipulated period of "eight weeks" i.e. 7X8 = 56 days. The cheques on account of principal and interest amount were issued giving the date long after its maturity, which violates the norms of the terms and conditions od deposit and thereby alters its position in violation of Rule 6(3) of the saud Rules, 1975. Subsequently, no paument was made in terms of its specific commitment made under letter dated August 25, 2003. Even in some intimations and court proceedings a deliberate statement is also being made on behalf of the company that the order dated June 28, 2004 of the Hon'ble Shimla High Court is still operative, whereas the same has been observed as 'fraud' by the Ld. Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharastra State, Mumbai in its judgement dated May 12, 2009 in Revision Petition No. 09 of 2009 filed in connection with R.A. No. 38 of 2006 and Consumer Compalint No. 247 of 2005 (Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain and Anr. -Vs.- M/s. Morepen Laboratories Ltd.).

I thing if appropriate action is taken the entire veil will be opened not only on the prt of the company but also its responsible office bearers.

Anup Kr. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate, High Court at Calcutta (+91-[protected]).

Post your Comment

    I want to submit Complaint Positive Review Neutral Comment
    code
    By clicking Submit you agree to our Terms of Use
    Submit

    Contact Information

    India
    File a Complaint