india is great
Wal-Mart, which has finally got the green light to start its retail business in a country where even local chains are struggling to make money, will find that it is not easy to make a decent buck in the Indian environment.Even though Bharti Wal-Mart, the joint venture between Bharti Enterprises and Wal-Mart Stores Inc, plans on rolling out its first Indian retail store in 12-18 months, the availability and cost of real estate in India, especially in the metros, is very high and could prove to be a challenge for the low-price retailer. The central goal of Wal-Mart is to keep retail prices low (everyday low prices) as opposed to using temporary sales and discounts— and the company has been very successful at this. Experts estimate that Wal-Mart saves shoppers at least 15 percent on a typical cart of groceries.
” If we pay too much of rentals, we cannot offer great prices to our customers,” Raj Jain, Wal-Mart India’s President and Bharti Wal-Mart MD & CEO, was quoted as saying by The Economic Times today.
india is great
speakasia case start in suprime coat 09/09/2011
final disposal 19/09/2012
result
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 383 OF 2011
Solomon Jemes and others …. Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ….Respondents
O R D E R
1. The above mentioned writ petition was filed under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs:
(a) issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ and/or direction to
Respondent No.3 to disburse the payments due to the Petitioners
and other panelists against the reward points earned by the
panelists and also direct to R4 to refund the subscription
amounts due to the Petitioners and other subscribers for the
period the e-magazine was not provided;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ and/or directing that the
money so collected from the panelists/subscribers be refunded
them in toto as being public money and any investigation shall
not put an embargo or hitch in the refund of the same in toto;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ and/or directing the
appointment of an independent committee or to R1 or R2 for the
preservation, regulation, monitoring and supervision of the
huge public money tentatively more than worth Rs.150 crores
unless the same is being refunded in toto to more than 1
million panelists and investors spreaded all over the country
including the present petitioners and allowing them to
participate in the business activities of the Respondent No.3
to earn their day-to-day livelihood;
2
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ and/or directing the said
amount to be deposited before this Hon’ble Court in interest
accruing account;
(e) Such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances
of the case may require be passed.
2. We notice, pending this writ petition, few interim orders have
been passed by this Court. On 14.11.2011, this Court felt that the
disputes between the parties could be settled by way of mediation
consequently a former Chief Justice of India was requested to explore
the possibility of an amicable settlement of disputes between the
parties and to submit a report after the mediation proceedings are
concluded. On 03.01.2012, it was submitted before the Court that
mediation proceedings had been concluded and report sent to this Court.
On 06.02.2012, this Court passed an order directing the concerned
respondents to deposit the amount indicated by the Mediator with the
Secretary General, Supreme Court. In pursuance to that order,
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 deposited an amount of US $ 10 million by a
bank draft bearing DD No. 037002 dated 20th February 2012 drawn on State
Bank of India, Singapore Branch in favour of “The Registrar, Supreme
Court of India”. This Court vide order dated 23.02.2012 directed the
Secretary General of this Court to deposit the amount in the UCO Bank,
Supreme Court Compound for a fixed period.
3. We have now gone through the affidavit filed by the
Investigating Officer, Economic Offences Wing (III), Crime Branch,
C.I.D., Mumbai on 13.03.2012 of which para 6 is of some relevance and
hence extracted hereunder:
3
“The answering Respondent further submits that the
further investigation by the Respondent No.6 has
revealed the shocking facts about the Petitioners that,
out of the total Petitioners, Petitioner No.3 are
franchises of the Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4
who are shading the crocodile’s tears who want to create
the ground that no cause of action arises against
Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 in India and
therefore they have approached this Hon’ble Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the
Respondent Nos. 6 to 101 have invested the meager amount
of Rs.11,000 each. Their interrogation has revealed
that the representatives of Respondent No.3 and
Respondent No.4 had approached them at their respective
addresses in Southern States and had assured them that
the money invested by them would be returned to them
provided they gave their signatures at two/three places
as required by them. Such Petitioners have claimed that
they are ignorant about any Petition filed in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the contents as well
as the purpose thereof.”
4. The affidavit also refers to a complaint filed by Shri
Navnit Tarachand KKhosla, Managing Director, TFIC Consultant Pvt.
Ltd., Mumbai wherein he has alleged that he was cheated by the
accused persons for an amount of Rs.5.43 lacs in the Money Rolling
of Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd., knowing well that the accused
company was a fraud and that they had misappropriated the entire
amount. The complainant further alleged that the accused company
had induced the people across India to invest their hard earned
money in the Ponzi/Money Rolling Scheme and cheated 20 lac Indian
investors. The above mentioned complaint was registered by Nirmal
Nagar Police Station as C.R. No. 153/11 under Section 120(b) r/w
406, 420 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Prize Chit and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The case was later
transferred for investigation to EOW, CB, CID, Mumbai vide C.R. No.
60/2011.
4
5. Further, the affidavit also states that the records of Tulsiyat
Tek Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, Kritanj Management and Allied Services, Mumbai
and Seamless LLP, Mumbai all posed as Master franchise/collection
agents for accused company “Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd.” show that the
amount of more than Rs.2276 crores is involved in the crime which was
collected through money rolling scheme. Further it was also stated
that the accused persons had transferred the funds to the tune of
Rs.750 crores to the bank accounts of Haren Ventures Pvt. Ltd.,
Singapore in the United Overseas Bank and HSBC Bank Singapore through
electronic mode.
Further para 20(b) of the affidavit states as follows:
“The answering Respondent further submits that there is
no doubt that, in the 115 petitioners list, some
petitioners are the victims of accused company “Speak
Asia Online Pvt. Ltd.” But among the petitioners some
viz. Petitioner Nos. 1,3 and 102 to 115 have joined with
the crocodile tears. In fact the said petitioners are
found to be instrumental in running the alleged money
rolling scheme of Speak Asia Online and investing big
amounts of innocent members/investors. The relevant
documents have revealed the involvement of some of the
Petitioners in the alleged crime.”
6. The Investigating Officer filed another affidavit on 15.09.2012
wherein it was stated that in connection with the crime, several
persons had been arrested and incriminating documents were seized and
some persons stated to have been involved in the crime are still at
large and are not co-operating with the investigation. The Enforcement
Directorate had also registered a case under Money Laundering Act
against the accused company.
7. The counter affidavit further states that the accused persons
had misappropriated amount to the tune of Rs.2,276 crores out of which
5
a sum of Rs.141 crores had been frozen in several bank accounts in the
name of so called Master franchises/Collection agents and franchises
throughout India.
8. We are of the view that in the light of the above facts this
Court is not justified in invoking its jurisdiction under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India in working out any scheme for settling the
disputes which are criminal in nature. Possibly, noticing the above
developments the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. We
are granting the permission as prayed for, but all the same, we make it
clear that the investigation initiated by the Enforcement Directorate
would continue in accordance with law so also the crime registered
under EOW C.R. No. 60/11 under Section 406, 420, 120(b) of the IPC read
with 3, 4, 5, 6 of Prize, Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning)
Act, 1978.
9. We are also of the considered view that this is not a matter
which could be resolved by way of mediation. There are 115 petitioners
before us. Affidavit filed by the Investigating Officers states that
above twenty lakh persons have invested money. If the Court works out
a scheme invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India in respect of
the petitioners, then this Court cannot turn a blind eye if other
investors also come with a similar petition. Consequently, the order
passed by this Court on 14.11.2011 initiating mediation proceedings is
recalled.
10. We have already indicated that on the basis of this Court’s
order an amount of US $ 10million has been deposited by respondent Nos.
6
3 and 4 which is now lying in a fixed deposit in UCO Bank, Supreme
Court Compound, which has to be returned to respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
It is so ordered. The proceedings initiated in writ petition No. 383
of 2011 therefore stands concluded and the prayer of the counsel for
the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition is accordingly allowed,
making it clear that whatever we have stated above would not affect
rights of the parties and the law will take its own course. The writ
petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
.......................J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
.......................J.
(Dipak Misra)
New Delhi,
September 19, 2012
7
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.12 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 383 OF 2011
SOLOMON JEMES & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for impleadment,stay and directions,intervention,
permission to file rejoinder affidavit,permission to file additional
documents)
(FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
Date: 19/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek Sibal,Adv.
Mr. Sunil K. Tekriwal,Adv.
Dr. Mamta Tekriwal,Adv.
Ms. K.V.Bharathi Upadhyaya,Adv.
Mr. Rajiv K. Raj,Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari,Adv
For Applicants Mr. Amol N. Suryawanshi,Adv.
No.1 to 5
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Salve,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Dushyant Dave,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Indu Malhotra,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
Mr. Srisabari Rajan,Adv.
Ms. Aditi Bhat,Adv.
Ms. Chinmayee Chandra,Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Naphade,Sr.Adv.
Mr. B.H. Marlapalle,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kharde,Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv
Ms. Anita Bafna,Adv.
8
Mr. Rajiv Datta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Abhinav,Adv.
Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv
Ms. Gargi Khanna,Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balramdas,Adv.
Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar,Adv.
Mr. H.S. Parihar,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn
in terms of the signed order.
(NARENDRA PRASAD)
COURT MASTER
(RENUKA SADANA)
COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 383 OF 2011
Solomon Jemes and others …. Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ….Respondents
O R D E R
1. The above mentioned writ petition was filed under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs:
(a) issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ and/or direction to
Respondent No.3 to disburse the payments due to the Petitioners
and other panelists against the reward points earned by the
panelists and also direct to R4 to refund the subscription
amounts due to the Petitioners and other subscribers for the
period the e-magazine was not provided;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ and/or directing that the
money so collected from the panelists/subscribers be refunded
them in toto as being public money and any investigation shall
not put an embargo or hitch in the refund of the same in toto;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ and/or directing the
appointment of an independent committee or to R1 or R2 for the
preservation, regulation, monitoring and supervision of the
huge public money tentatively more than worth Rs.150 crores
unless the same is being refunded in toto to more than 1
million panelists and investors spreaded all over the country
including the present petitioners and allowing them to
participate in the business activities of the Respondent No.3
to earn their day-to-day livelihood;
2
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or any other appropriate writ and/or directing the said
amount to be deposited before this Hon’ble Court in interest
accruing account;
(e) Such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances
of the case may require be passed.
2. We notice, pending this writ petition, few interim orders have
been passed by this Court. On 14.11.2011, this Court felt that the
disputes between the parties could be settled by way of mediation
consequently a former Chief Justice of India was requested to explore
the possibility of an amicable settlement of disputes between the
parties and to submit a report after the mediation proceedings are
concluded. On 03.01.2012, it was submitted before the Court that
mediation proceedings had been concluded and report sent to this Court.
On 06.02.2012, this Court passed an order directing the concerned
respondents to deposit the amount indicated by the Mediator with the
Secretary General, Supreme Court. In pursuance to that order,
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 deposited an amount of US $ 10 million by a
bank draft bearing DD No. 037002 dated 20th February 2012 drawn on State
Bank of India, Singapore Branch in favour of “The Registrar, Supreme
Court of India”. This Court vide order dated 23.02.2012 directed the
Secretary General of this Court to deposit the amount in the UCO Bank,
Supreme Court Compound for a fixed period.
3. We have now gone through the affidavit filed by the
Investigating Officer, Economic Offences Wing (III), Crime Branch,
C.I.D., Mumbai on 13.03.2012 of which para 6 is of some relevance and
hence extracted hereunder:
3
“The answering Respondent further submits that the
further investigation by the Respondent No.6 has
revealed the shocking facts about the Petitioners that,
out of the total Petitioners, Petitioner No.3 are
franchises of the Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4
who are shading the crocodile’s tears who want to create
the ground that no cause of action arises against
Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 in India and
therefore they have approached this Hon’ble Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the
Respondent Nos. 6 to 101 have invested the meager amount
of Rs.11,000 each. Their interrogation has revealed
that the representatives of Respondent No.3 and
Respondent No.4 had approached them at their respective
addresses in Southern States and had assured them that
the money invested by them would be returned to them
provided they gave their signatures at two/three places
as required by them. Such Petitioners have claimed that
they are ignorant about any Petition filed in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the contents as well
as the purpose thereof.”
4. The affidavit also refers to a complaint filed by Shri
Navnit Tarachand KKhosla, Managing Director, TFIC Consultant Pvt.
Ltd., Mumbai wherein he has alleged that he was cheated by the
accused persons for an amount of Rs.5.43 lacs in the Money Rolling
of Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd., knowing well that the accused
company was a fraud and that they had misappropriated the entire
amount. The complainant further alleged that the accused company
had induced the people across India to invest their hard earned
money in the Ponzi/Money Rolling Scheme and cheated 20 lac Indian
investors. The above mentioned complaint was registered by Nirmal
Nagar Police Station as C.R. No. 153/11 under Section 120(b) r/w
406, 420 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Prize Chit and Money
Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The case was later
transferred for investigation to EOW, CB, CID, Mumbai vide C.R. No.
60/2011.
4
5. Further, the affidavit also states that the records of Tulsiyat
Tek Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, Kritanj Management and Allied Services, Mumbai
and Seamless LLP, Mumbai all posed as Master franchise/collection
agents for accused company “Speak Asia Online Pvt. Ltd.” show that the
amount of more than Rs.2276 crores is involved in the crime which was
collected through money rolling scheme. Further it was also stated
that the accused persons had transferred the funds to the tune of
Rs.750 crores to the bank accounts of Haren Ventures Pvt. Ltd.,
Singapore in the United Overseas Bank and HSBC Bank Singapore through
electronic mode.
Further para 20(b) of the affidavit states as follows:
“The answering Respondent further submits that there is
no doubt that, in the 115 petitioners list, some
petitioners are the victims of accused company “Speak
Asia Online Pvt. Ltd.” But among the petitioners some
viz. Petitioner Nos. 1,3 and 102 to 115 have joined with
the crocodile tears. In fact the said petitioners are
found to be instrumental in running the alleged money
rolling scheme of Speak Asia Online and investing big
amounts of innocent members/investors. The relevant
documents have revealed the involvement of some of the
Petitioners in the alleged crime.”
6. The Investigating Officer filed another affidavit on 15.09.2012
wherein it was stated that in connection with the crime, several
persons had been arrested and incriminating documents were seized and
some persons stated to have been involved in the crime are still at
large and are not co-operating with the investigation. The Enforcement
Directorate had also registered a case under Money Laundering Act
against the accused company.
7. The counter affidavit further states that the accused persons
had misappropriated amount to the tune of Rs.2,276 crores out of which
5
a sum of Rs.141 crores had been frozen in several bank accounts in the
name of so called Master franchises/Collection agents and franchises
throughout India.
8. We are of the view that in the light of the above facts this
Court is not justified in invoking its jurisdiction under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India in working out any scheme for settling the
disputes which are criminal in nature. Possibly, noticing the above
developments the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. We
are granting the permission as prayed for, but all the same, we make it
clear that the investigation initiated by the Enforcement Directorate
would continue in accordance with law so also the crime registered
under EOW C.R. No. 60/11 under Section 406, 420, 120(b) of the IPC read
with 3, 4, 5, 6 of Prize, Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning)
Act, 1978.
9. We are also of the considered view that this is not a matter
which could be resolved by way of mediation. There are 115 petitioners
before us. Affidavit filed by the Investigating Officers states that
above twenty lakh persons have invested money. If the Court works out
a scheme invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India in respect of
the petitioners, then this Court cannot turn a blind eye if other
investors also come with a similar petition. Consequently, the order
passed by this Court on 14.11.2011 initiating mediation proceedings is
recalled.
10. We have already indicated that on the basis of this Court’s
order an amount of US $ 10million has been deposited by respondent Nos.
6
3 and 4 which is now lying in a fixed deposit in UCO Bank, Supreme
Court Compound, which has to be returned to respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
It is so ordered. The proceedings initiated in writ petition No. 383
of 2011 therefore stands concluded and the prayer of the counsel for
the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition is accordingly allowed,
making it clear that whatever we have stated above would not affect
rights of the parties and the law will take its own course. The writ
petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
.......................J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
.......................J.
(Dipak Misra)
New Delhi,
September 19, 2012
7
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.12 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 383 OF 2011
SOLOMON JEMES & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for impleadment,stay and directions,intervention,
permission to file rejoinder affidavit,permission to file additional
documents)
(FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
Date: 19/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek Sibal,Adv.
Mr. Sunil K. Tekriwal,Adv.
Dr. Mamta Tekriwal,Adv.
Ms. K.V.Bharathi Upadhyaya,Adv.
Mr. Rajiv K. Raj,Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari,Adv
For Applicants Mr. Amol N. Suryawanshi,Adv.
No.1 to 5
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Salve,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Dushyant Dave,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Indu Malhotra,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
Mr. Srisabari Rajan,Adv.
Ms. Aditi Bhat,Adv.
Ms. Chinmayee Chandra,Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Naphade,Sr.Adv.
Mr. B.H. Marlapalle,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kharde,Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv
Ms. Anita Bafna,Adv.
8
Mr. Rajiv Datta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Abhinav,Adv.
Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv
Ms. Gargi Khanna,Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balramdas,Adv.
Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar,Adv.
Mr. H.S. Parihar,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn
in terms of the signed order.
(NARENDRA PRASAD)
COURT MASTER
(RENUKA SADANA)
COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
JISHE 20 LACS PARIVAR KAMSE KAM 20000000 LOG RESULT KA WAIT KAR REHE THE
INDIA IS GREAT
101% POLTICIAN CORUPT
101% OFFICER CORRUPT
PHIR V
INDIA IS GREAT
