The current order of the
courts in the case of ABA of Ashok Bahirwani speaks volumes of the bias put in
the minds of court by the EOW. The court has not given any importance to the
statements of applicant and company and Order looks more like an EOW report
with so many ambiguities. Some of the examples are :
Extract from the Order : “The
principal company Speak Asia Ltd. is a
private limited company. It
is registered at
Singapore.”
My View :
The above statement is contradictory in itself , how can a
company with name Limited can be called a Private Limited.
Further company’s registered name in Singapore is Speak Asia
Online Pte Limited. IF the court can’t
even take care in spelling the name of the company, how we can believe the
hearings are going to be un-biased.
Extract from the Order : “Notwithstanding
the applicant's plea that he
too has got same background
like the complainant,
the applicant has failed to
explain as to how he has
continued to advocate cause of Speak Asia.”
My View :
If a panelist is supporting the company like Speakasia , it is
only because he wants that his source of earnings becomes legitimate going
forwards. After facing so many losses from the fly-by-night companies , here
came a company which has bravely stood
its ground to explain its business model and make the future of many Indians
secure which otherwise does not seem possible.
Extract from the Order : “The
analysis of modus operandi as it is disclosed in
the affidavit filed on
behalf of Speakasia Online Pvt Ltd.
through Tarak Bajpai S/o Vimalendu Bajpai”
My View :
Here also the court is giving a different name of the company ,
and has sweetly ignored to mention the capacity in which Mr. Tarak Bajpai has
presented the affidavit on behalf of the company.
Extract from the Order : “For
the panelist who commences to conduct
survey which means enrolls
more panelists, keeps on
getting money and reward
points against new
enrollment.”
My View :
How in the earth can you decipher such a meaning of the current
business model. Where was it mentioned in the Website and Terms and conditions
that Conducting Survey means enrolling more panelists.
Extract from the Order : “A
panelist or investor who fails to enroll new
panelist thereby stands
eliminated from the guild of
investors benefited by the
scheme, having became
panelist, such person than
turns out to be persons
who is cheated.”
“Those at the bottom keep
on paying to those at the top.
Prima facie it turns out to
be case of money circulation
prohibited under section 3,
4, 5 and 6 of Prize, Chits and Money
Circulation Scheme
(Banning) Act, 1979 and as well offence under
section 406, 420, 120-B of IPC”
My View : Seems like courts are taking a biased view without understanding the business model . There appears no reason that company would have explained the meaning like this in the affidavit submitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment