New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sought a reply from the Andhra Pradesh government as to why the FIR registered by its crime investigation department against Singapore-based marketing company Speak Asia Online should not be quashed. Speak Asia, an online survey company, has allegedly duped over 12 lakh investors across India to the tune of R1,300 crore.
A bench headed by Justice HL Dattu sought a reply from the state government after the online firm’s counsel informed the court that notice has been issued in a similar case by another bench.
The firm has challenged Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order that dismissed its plea seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against it. The high court had also vacated the stay on the arrest of Speak Asia’s directors, representatives, officials and employees of the company.
On Monday, a group of about 115 panelists of the company had moved the Supreme Court seeking to recover R150 crore stuck with the beleaguered company.
A bench headed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari while issuing notice to the Centre and others on Monday had given two weeks’ time to Additional Solicitor General Haren Rawal and the company to find out why the income tax authorities had seized its records and if the company had any tax liability.
The court also impleaded CBDT and the Mumbai police as parties in the case. The other respondents are the ministry of finance, RBI, Speak Asia and Singapore-based Haren Ventures, a global distributor of e-magazine.
Speak Asia had assured its investors, also called panelists, commissions if the latter introduced new members and promised lucrative returns through a multi-marketing pyramid model.
The panelists under the controversial multi-level scheme used to conduct online survey for the company in lieu of online payment.
In order to become panelist with Speak Asia, subscription of an e-magazine was necessary after making the payment of R11,000 for a year.
The panelist sought a direction to the company to disburse the payments due to them against the reward points earned by them and also direct Haren to refund the subscription amounts for the period the e-magazine was not provided. They also sought to appoint an independent committee for regulation and monitoring of such public money.
Besides, the panelists want that any investigation should not put an embargo or hitch in the refund process.
The firm has challenged Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order that dismissed its plea seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against it. The high court had also vacated the stay on the arrest of Speak Asia’s directors, representatives, officials and employees of the company.
On Monday, a group of about 115 panelists of the company had moved the Supreme Court seeking to recover R150 crore stuck with the beleaguered company.
A bench headed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari while issuing notice to the Centre and others on Monday had given two weeks’ time to Additional Solicitor General Haren Rawal and the company to find out why the income tax authorities had seized its records and if the company had any tax liability.
The court also impleaded CBDT and the Mumbai police as parties in the case. The other respondents are the ministry of finance, RBI, Speak Asia and Singapore-based Haren Ventures, a global distributor of e-magazine.
Speak Asia had assured its investors, also called panelists, commissions if the latter introduced new members and promised lucrative returns through a multi-marketing pyramid model.
The panelists under the controversial multi-level scheme used to conduct online survey for the company in lieu of online payment.
In order to become panelist with Speak Asia, subscription of an e-magazine was necessary after making the payment of R11,000 for a year.
The panelist sought a direction to the company to disburse the payments due to them against the reward points earned by them and also direct Haren to refund the subscription amounts for the period the e-magazine was not provided. They also sought to appoint an independent committee for regulation and monitoring of such public money.
Besides, the panelists want that any investigation should not put an embargo or hitch in the refund process.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.