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
Reply
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]).
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]).