Quantcast
Channel: Bharatkalyan97
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 11039

SoniaG NHL grab case for dummies. How to make Rs. 2k crores with Rs. 50 lakhs capital -- MR Venkatesh.

$
0
0
  1. National Herald will become a major case study in all global MBA schools--How to grab Rs5000 crore with no investment & brazen it out!! RT
    Congress lent Rs 90 crore to Gandhis to control a Rs 1,600 crore property. Can't see how this is not a suspicious deal
    The Congis are blabbering, shouting, kicking & screaming but beneath all that ..they know Sonia & Rahul are in serious trouble
    Case of National Herald is a secular court case by . It is also about Navjeevan & Quami Awaaz.
    last para in the Court order in case. how can 1 escape these damaging words?



    J Gopikrishnan ‏@jgopikrishnan70  9h
    @Swamy39 SFIO under Jaitely can also probe on the accounting jugglery of Young Indian and The AJL, the publishers of National Herald

    Subramanian Swamy ‏@Swamy39  11h
    Jaitely can order investigation under Income Tax Act against TDK for misusing party funds in the NH case as per my letter to him. Will he?

    1. As Editor of Niti Central I gave full space for (Sandhya Jain) to expose National Herald scam over several reports. MSM ignored story. 2/3
    2. SandhyaJain deserves credit for finding the fraud, 90% dead bogus shareholders of Associated Journals in Oct 2010
     Retweeted by 
    AJL had land worth Rs 2000 crores. Now Cong party has no money, AJL has no land. All with YI controlled by mother-son duo
  2.  Retweeted by 
    Step 10 - Remove corporate veil of YI you find Mother-son duo controlling AJL with Rs 2000 cr property with 5 Lacs capital n/n
  3.  Retweeted by 
    Step 9: Cong party loses 90 cr. AJL issues 9 cr shares. beneficiary not Cong party but YI, a company controlled by Sonia-Rahul 9/n
  4.  Retweeted by 
    Step 8: YI has a paid up capital of Rs 5 Lacs. And with that money Sonia-Rahul control Rs 2000 cr property. 8/n
  5.  Retweeted by 
    Step 7: Sonia-Rahul control YI. YI Controls AJL. So Sonia-Rahul control AL which has property worth RS 2000 crs. 7/n
  6.  Retweeted by 
    Step 6: By allotting 9 cr shares to YI becomes a 99% Holding of YI. ANd YI controlled by Sonia-Rahul. 6/n
  7.  Retweeted by 
    Step 5: Instead of repaying money back to Cong Party, AJL allots 9 cr shares of Rs 10 each = 90 crs to Young India. 5/n
  8.  Retweeted by 
    . Step 4: Meanwhile Sonia, Rahul & others float a new company called Young Indian. Mother-son duo hold 76%. 4/n
  9.  Retweeted by 
    . Step 3: Cong Party writes off loan govern to AJL. But beneficiary of write off is NOT AJL. 3/n
  10.  Retweeted by 
    : After giving 90 cr loan to AJL, Cong party does not make any efforts to recover. Obviously it is for a purpose. 2/n
  11.  Retweeted by 
    NH scam in brief: Step 1: Illegal for Cong party to give loan to Associated Journal. No Prov in RPA nor in Cong Constitution. 1/n

    Friday , June 27 , 2014 |

    Summons to Sonia and Rahul

    New Delhi, June 26: Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi were today issued summons by a Delhi court that said a prima facie case of cheating and misappropriation of property could be made out against them.

    Issuing the summons to appear on August 7 on a criminal complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, metropolitan magistrate Gomati Manocha said: “The complainant has established a prima facie case against the accused under Section 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC.”
    Swamy had filed the complaint last year against the Congress granting an interest-free loan of Rs 50 lakh to a company, Young Indian Ltd, to acquire Associated Journals Ltd, the publisher of the now-defunct National Herald newspaper. Sonia and Rahul hold 76 per cent stake in the venture.
    The judge said: “From the complaint and evidence led so far it appears YI (Young Indian) was in fact created as a sham or a cloak to convert public money to personal use or as a special purpose vehicle for acquiring control over Rs 2,000 crore worth of assets.”
    Summons were also issued to Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey and Sam Pitroda, the other directors of Young Indian.
    Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said Swamy’s charges were “purely motivated, malicious and mischievous”. He added: “Swamy and the BJP must understand that neither the Nehru-Gandhi family nor the Congress will get cowed down by such revengeful witch-hunts. We have not received any summons so far. The party and Congress leaders will take appropriate action after taking necessary legal advice.”
    Another spokesperson and a senior lawyer, Abhishek Singhvi, said: “Issuance of process over a stale complaint is not something to be excited about. Let’s seek comprehensive legal advice and you will see how all the allegations are legally demolished.”
    A comprehensive and point-by-point response would be made once the summonses were received, he said. “The response will conclusively demonstrate that falsehoods and distortions are the basis of the complaint. It will be established that even if the complaint as drafted is taken at face value, it does not disclose any offence whatsoever and ought to be rejected/quashed at the threshold,” Singhvi said.
    But Swamy, who asked the finance minister to initiate an income tax investigation, said: “There was a serious breach of trust. If proven guilty, she could be jailed for seven years. They will have to face trial. They have been summoned as accused.”
    Swamy had filed the case in 2013, prompting Rahul Gandhi to file a defamation suit against him, which was not followed up.
    In a letter to Swamy, Rahul described the allegations as “utterly false, entirely baseless and defamatory”. He added: “We shall pursue the legal remedies open to us against the utterly motivated and irresponsible contents of your press conference, and we shall pursue all proceedings that are available in law to ensure that an individual like you and an organisation like yours do not abuse the freedom to speak and write in utter violation of the equally important need in a civilised society to maintain the dignity of individuals and organisations and to abide by the law of the country.”
    Swamy had alleged that the Congress’s interest-free loan violated the Income Tax Act as political parties received tax exemption.
    At that time, party general secretary Janardan Dwivedi had said: “The Indian National Congress has done its duty in supporting Associated Journals Limited to help initiate a process to bring the newspaper back to health in compliance with the laws of the land.”
    Dwivedi said this support was extended by the Congress in the form of interest-free loans from which no commercial profit has accrued.
    Associated Journals was floated by Jawaharlal Nehru to publish the National Herald and included senior Congress leaders as trust members.
    Young Indian was formed on November 23, 2010, and registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. It lists its address as 5A Herald House, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, the office of the National Herald.
    Besides Sonia and Rahul, the shareholders include Congress treasurer Motilal Vora, who is also the chairman-cum-managing director of Associated Journals, and party general secretary Oscar Fernandes. Journalist Suman Dubey has been designated as managing committee member while technocrat Sam Pitroda is a member.
    Swamy had accused Sonia, Rahul and others of conspiring to cheat and misappropriate funds by just paying Rs 50 lakh by which Young Indian obtained the right to recover Rs 90.25 crore which Associated Journals owed the Congress party. He alleged that over Rs 2,000 crore worth of assets also got transferred to Young Indian.
    The court said the accused were office-bearers and trustees of the funds of the Congress and these funds were not their personal property. “The funds entrusted to them by the party were to be utilised to advance the purposes for which the Congress party was formed.... These funds could not have been advanced in the form of an interest-free loan to AJL, as no provisions exist in the Representation of the People Act or the constitution of the party permitting grant of any such loan to a company engaged in commercial activities,” the court said.

    http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140627/jsp/frontpage/story_18556490.jsp#.U6yphJSxPXo

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 11039

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>