Monday 23 September 2013

SPEAK ASIA

SOME DOUBTS :- 
1. In the trial period will the company get NOC from MCA and ROC? Will they ask to wait till the final verdict comes (As the case comes under Prize chits and money circulation schemes (banning) act).

2. As we have heard that MCAs investigating department SFIO is also probing SAOL and we do not know the exact report they have submitted with the Central Government. Will that report affect in getting the NOC from MCA?

3. For getting back the seized website and all other documents company has to file a fresh writ. Will it again delay the process?

4. All of us are aware that Company got an order from RBI to transact exit payout in India. This order is only for Exit Payout or for all other transactions including restart? Or Company has to approach RBI Again for restart process?
CLARIFICATIONS BY Satya Bachan ji :- 
1. Company may keep all paperwork ready and move for registration after CS

2.SFIO investigation does not affect restart.One report they have submitted which is a harmless one.

3.For getting back website etc from magistrates court ,does not take long time few weeks only.
4.RBI said it has not stopped banking , and that is end of matter.It will not stop banking again.

We need not go into too much deatils of what all the management has to do .They are getting advice from the top minds and know how to handle the matters.After CS let us give them 2/3 months to solve the issues and then green signal .

Tuesday 17 September 2013

SPEAK ASIA - CURRENT STATUS ( SEP 2013 )



Status of Writ Petitions in Bombay High Court to Quash F.I.R's
It is simply that court has shown displeasure at the never ending investigation .The court feels that as PP has submitted IG of konkan will personally see that Chargesheet is filed in Thane Raigard FIR's PROMPTLY .As court feels that IG will take care of these FIR's they do not see need to quash the FIR's .
Order Content:
There are two submissions which have been raised by
Mr. Ponda during the course of his arguments.

2. Firstly, the investigations are being conducted by
various police stations at Bombay and in Raigad, Ratnagiri and
Sindhudurg Districts and Thane District. There seems to be no end
to it and when the F.I.R. has been registered in the year 2011, two
years down the line the requisite reports have not been filed in the
Competent Court by the Investigating Officer.

3. The second submission is that when one F.I.R. is
registered and the investigations therein are being conducted at
an all India level, therefore, for the same alleged offence and the
alleged conspiracy, there cannot be subsequent F.I..Rs inasmuch
as the law is well settled that if there is one incident and one
occurrence, then, there will be only one F.I.R. Any subsequent
information in relation thereto will not enable registration of a
second F.I.R.

4. We enquired with Mr. Gharat, learned Special PP, as to
when the investigations are being concluded and how the
grievance of the Petitioner in relation thereto can be redressed.
After seeking instructions from the concerned authority, Mr.
Gharat makes a statement that the Inspector General of Police,
Konkan Region is an authority competent to supervise and
monitor the investigations carried out by the police officers at
Bombay, in Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg Districts and

equally in Thane District. Under his supervision, monitoring and
control, he would ensure that prompt steps will be taken to
conclude the investigations and to file the requisite report in the
Competent Courts. He assures the Court that the IGP will
personally look into all these grievances of the Petitioner and
ensure compliance with the above statement.

5. In view thereof and in the light of the fact that the
F.I.R. has been registered on 28th July 2011/10th August 2011,
we do not deem it fit and proper to consider the second
submission of Mr. Ponda and proceed to quash the F.I.R. at this
stage. We would keep the second contention open for being raised
before the appropriate Court at an appropriate stage. We clarify
that we have not expressed any opinion in regard thereto. Writ
Petition is disposed off with the above direction.
(G. S. PATEL, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
.