EOW move to freeze Speak Asia Supreme Court case
Mar.17, 2012 in Speak Asia Online
For as long as I can remember now senior panelists in Speak Asia have been steadfastly pointing to the Solomon James writ 383 and insisting it will decide the fate of Speak Asia on all fronts.
Given that the Solomon James writ 383 case lodged in the Supreme Court is a civil case revolving around the recovery of money from Speak Asia, I myself have maintained that there is little chance it will have any bearing on the criminal investigations into the company.
This is evidenced by Speak Asia's (and their sidekicks over at AISPA) multiple cases lodged in a number of courts trying to squash FIRs lodged against the company. The company and their legal team seem to be of the belief that by quashing FIRs against the company will somehow negate the criminal liability of running what has been described as the largest MLM fraud India has ever seen.
A few days ago, one such case originally launched by AISPA (now the Crasto writ 3611), took an interesting turn in that one of the named defendants, Navniit Kkhosla, informed the court he'd received his lost money and in light of this 'does not wish to pursue the complaint (any further)'.
As usual, the one-sided biased story put out by Speak Asia, AISPA and their senior panelists was that the FIR had been withdrawn and that a significant obstacle had been overcome.
When the order of the March 15th writ 3611 case was made public an hour or so ago however, not surprisingly it painted an entirely different picture.
As per the order, Kkhosla did indeed inform the court that he had received his invested money. This money was not paid by Speak Asia but rather supposedly by gullible members of the company, who fronted the 606,000 INR ($12,000 USD) sum after the All India SpeakAisa Panelist Association (AISPA) started calling up their members and asking for money.
To observers, this seemed rather strange. Certainly I myself didn't attempt to second guess why Kkhosla had opted for a payout, nonetheless from other panelists. Revealed in the March 15th order however is also the following:
We are informed by the learned P. P. that they have filed stay application in the Apex Court and the said application is likely tobe heard on 22nd March, 2012.
A stay application of course is an application for a stay of proceedings:
A stay of proceedings is a ruling by the court in civil and criminal procedure, halting further legal process in a trial.
The court can subsequently lift the stay and resume proceedings. However, a stay is sometimes used as a device to postpone proceedings indefinitely.
This brings to light two things.
The first is that the EOW (and other authorities) must believe they have built a strong enough criminal case against Speak Asia to warrant asking the Supreme Court to put a stop to the Solomon James writ 383.
The Solomon James writ 383 case has for the most part been conducted in secrecy of late via mediation meetings. Meetings which, as we understand, have been discussing the payment of money to the 115 signed petitioners, whilst Speak Asia's senior panelists mislead the rest of the member-base with talk of exit-options and payments for all.
To date no formal court document has acknowledged discussions of payments to all of Speak Asia panelists nor any exit-option put forth by Speak Asia.
To interrupt this process with a stay application indicates that the authorities believe they have an urgent enough reason to approach the court for a stay order. Although what this is, is currently unclear.
The details of the criminal investigation against Speak Asia being conducted by various authorities has been scarce these past few months but now it appears they're ready to put a stop to civil action regarding payments, presumably in an attempt to shift focus onto the criminal side of things.
I had thought they might wait until the civil action played out but it appears the authorities would rather put a stop to it altogether.
The second point revealed in the stay application is Kkhosla's payment. I don't know how much of the EOW investigation Kkhosla is privvy too, but it appears that at least for him, he believed he had a better chance of recovering his money from other panelists (if they were willing to pay him), than by the Supreme Court action.
One possible reason is that whatever the reason the EOW have put forth on their stay application, it is believed that there's a strong chance it will push through a stay of proceedings on the Solomon James 383 case.
Unfortunately the details of the stay application have not been made public so what the EOW have in mind if they get their stay of proceedings is unclear. If I had to take a guess I'd say that it's got something to do with their ongoing investigation. Perhaps they're finally ready to bring about criminal proceedings against Speak Asia and its management.
Of course until the particulars of the stay application are made public, that for now remains just a theory.
In the meantime Kkhosla has recovered his invested money, the signed petitioners of the Solomon James writ 383 now face having their case and potential payouts frozen and the rest of the panelists are still stuck in limbo.
The Mumbai High Court has in the interim set another hearing date for the 27th March in order to observe the success or failure of the EOW's stay application in the Supreme Court.
The EOW expect their stay of application to be heard in the Solomon James writ 383 case on the 23rd of March in the Supreme Court.
EOW confirm Speak Asia criminal case charging on - Mar 19th, 2012
Speak Asia Court Case Roundup – Mon 12th Dec 2011 - Dec 12th, 2011
ED lodge money laundering case against Speak Asia - Jan 4th, 2012
PERJURY: Speak Asia lies to the Supreme Court! - Oct 18th, 2011
Why the Lahoti led Speak Asia committee is useless - Nov 14th, 2011
45 Comments on "EOW move to freeze Speak Asia Supreme Court case"
K. Chang
Mar 17th, 2012 at 3:02 am K. Chang(Q)
So WHO put up the 50 crore asked for by the Apex Court? AISPA or SAOL?
If SAOL has 50 crore for deposit for the court, it should have no problem coming up with much much smaller amount asked for by Khoosla. So why is AISPA paying off Khoosla, not SAOL?
This suggests (and indeed, confirms) much tighter integration between AISPA and SAOL, in terms of both finance and management.
M_Norway
Mar 17th, 2012 at 5:05 am M_Norway(Q)
A stay seems usually to be used to reverse an agreement, or annulling it. It can probably be met by an application for continuance.
I don't consider the settlement between Navniit Kkhosla and AISPA to be a bad idea. It would have been very unconvenient for him to represent his case in the Lahoti-mediation or the Supreme Court, since both of them are in Dehli (although it's possible to "meet" by written statements). He won't be able get a better outcome if he continues to fight in court, either.
All in all, the settlement seems to be in the interest of both parties, but obviously it must be in conflict with the interests of the Public Prosecutor (EOW).
I made a few comments about the topic "conflict of interests" some months ago, as an important factor to take care of in business. AISPA seems to have ignored this factor.
Mar 17th, 2012 at 5:24 am mike(Q)
WOW! EOW again going to slam Speak Asia with 'watertight' case and now this time moving to freeze Speak Asia Supreme Court case i.e; to put a stop to the Solomon James writ 383. Ha Ha Ha Ha…..OZ, really you are a genius. Mind blowing, really mind blowing, How intelligently prophesied all the things by you. I'll never forget to take my hat off to you. Let's see, what happens in coming weeks. Lastly I would like to say that "The show must go on." Ha Ha Ha Ha……
Mar 17th, 2012 at 6:04 am Brazilian(Q)
Their thesis is: "since the case is in Supreme Court, the rest, in lower courts, doesn't matter"
I had a different interpretation:
The stay is about annulating the agreement between Kkhosla and Bahirwani/Crasto.
"What will happen next week?"
There's a problem that has to be solved, getting the Exit Policy confirmed by the right authorities (by the Supreme Court, or retd. Justice R.C. Lahoti).
So far, no officials have confirmed anything about the Exit Policy being part of the official solution ordered by the Supreme Court.
If AISPA and Speak Asia can't get it confirmed, then maybe I will have to do it (get the Exit Policy confirmed or denied by the Supreme Court). This shouldn't be a problem for anyone if the Exit Policy really is a part of the official solution.
Mar 17th, 2012 at 7:13 am Vikky(Q)
>> Oz..
That's interesting..
Oz:
Revealed in the March 15th order however is also the following:
As we see in the order released on March 15th, link given below: http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2012/WP361111150312.pdf
The complete order is:
P.C.:
1. Original complainant/Respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit-in-reply and he has stated that he has received the entire amount due and payable and that he does not wish to pursue the complaint.
We are informed by the learned P. P. that they have filed stay application in the Apex Court and the said application is likely to be heard on 22nd March, 2012. In view of this, S. O. to 27th March, 2012 (to be shown on supplementary list).
2. Issue notice to Respondent in APPW No. 118 of 2012 to file the reply before the next. S. O. 27th March, 2012.
Respondent No. 3 is none other than Navniit Tarachand Khosla.
Now, who are "they" mentioned in the first order?
As per your meaning EOW has filed 'stay application' in High Court for & against WP (civil) 383/2011 case in Supreme Court?
Is that what you are coming to say?
Coming to the dates, I found Supreme Court hearing of SLP (Criminal) 7509-7510/2011 is on 23rd March, but not WP(civil) 383/2011.
If we see in 383 WP (Civil) latest order from Supreme Court, see the given link below:
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/3383-2011.pdf
It was clearly mentioned as:
Appealed Against: High Court Details (Not Available)
Matter is Connected To: Connected Details (Not Available)
Next Date Of Listing shows April 2nd (02/04/2012)
In previous Order dated Feb 23rd (23/02/2012) when the petition was called for hearing & before that also it was clearly mentioned:
With application for impeadment, directions, stay and office report
Hope these few things might have given you some hint..!
I think most of your views hasn't went wrong? Am I right?
Perhaps EOW is going to take the position that "AISPA has no right to pay off Kkhosla to dismiss a case brought against SAOL".
Or put it in other words: which side is AISPA on?
Kkhosla doesn't care who pays him. He's only out to recover his losses.
But which side is AISPA on makes a HUGE difference.
AISPA is supposed to be representing interests of panelists, so they are on the PLAINTIFF'S SIDE of Soloman Jemes vs. SAOL.
Now that they paid off Kkhosla, who's also on the side of Jemes (i.e. plaintiff), they are acting in the interest of the DEFENDENT (SAOL).
They are basically bypassing the court's mediation process and upcoming judgement.
K. Chang:
It's possible for them to be on the panelists side, with a clear viewpoint that the best interest of panelists is that Speak Asia should be allowed to continue. Specific viewpoints are usually allowed.
I'm not on anyone's side, except my own. I'm not against Speak Asia or AISPA, but I will usually make it difficult for them to mislead me or others. I'm not sharing their ideas either, since most of them seems to be illusions. I haven't had any "actions" against them, either.
Mar 17th, 2012 at 11:15 am Oz(Q)
The PP is representing the EOW in the 3611 case. Kkhosla isn't involved in the 383 case and AISPA hasn't been re-added to the 3611 case as of yet.
In any case, even if they were, why would AISPA file for a stay in the Supreme Course case?
That obviously leaves the EOW (Union of India, State of Maharashtra whatever you want to call them).
It might have been filed a while ago, but according to the EOW it's only going to be heard on the 22nd March. That's what's important here.
Sanjeev Khanna
Mar 17th, 2012 at 12:17 pm Sanjeev Khanna(Q)
http://causelists.nic.in/scnew/index1.html
From the supreme court website, if you see the Daily Cause list of SC Cases for 22nd March and 23rd March respectively, you will see only the case of SAOL vs Andhra Pradesh Govt is what is coming up for hearing and that's why Your assumption of "they" being EOW falls flat.
580. SLP(Crl.)No.7509-7510/2011 MR. B. SRIDHAR
II A/N-H SPEAKASIA ONLINE PTE. LTD. MR. D. MAHESH BABU
107,115, 0 S.(1429)Vs. STATE OF A.P. THR. CID,
3RD LISTING HYDERABAD & ANR.
(WITH APPLN.(S) FOR PERMISSION TO
PLACE ADDL. DOCUMENTS ON RECORD
AND STAY AND OFFICE REPORT)
It is clearly mentioned that SLP 7509-10 is put up for hearing and is seeking permission of stay. EOW is no where in this picture..
You have again started manipulating the facts OZ…
Mar 17th, 2012 at 12:25 pm Oz(Q)
The PP in the writ 3611 was representing the Mumbai EOW were they not?
What does a case involving the state of AP have to do with a petition trying to quash a Mumbai EOW investigation?
I'm all for discussing this to get to the bottom of it, as this article is my opinion based on the order. If you're going to assert the stay is in relation to the AP case in Hydrabad, at least provide information on why what happens there would cause the Mumbai Highcourt to stand over till after the case is heard.
From Crasto/AISPA have argued in the 3611 case that that Supreme Court matter Solomon James 383 writ should eclipse and FIRs regarding non-payment of dues. The EOW disagree with this so it's only logical that this is the case they are referring to when they say they have a stay application coming up?
Regarding the April date, Aman Azad, Bahirwani's right hand man published this on Facebook yesterday:
Next Hearing Date Shown on Supreme court website : 2-April-2012.
This date is system automated and Expected to be pre-poned in March 2012 .
As soon as any confirmed information comes Everyone Will be Informed.
That fits with the EOW's PP statement? (if it's true)
If SC gives an order of quashing AP FIR or atleast put a stay on proceedings of AP Police, the it will be easier for Mumbai High Court to decide on AISPA's appeal of quashing the FIR.
That's what I can understand.
Well the SpeakAsia AP case is on the 23rd, not the 22nd. That and it's to quash criminal proceedings, not a FIR (?). We've known the CID have been waiting to launch criminal proceedings against Speak Asia for a while, but this Supreme Court case has put the brakes on any criminal proceedings (I believe).
I guess we'll have to see if the writ 383 is preponed as Azad announced. Logically it makes far more sense to apply for a stay in the James case as this is what AISPA/Crasto have pointed to in their arguments that the Mumbai FIR was not needed and should be quashed.
The CID investigation was independent of any FIR was it not? (they were the ones who had approached interpol etc.)
If the EOW can get the James writ 383 stayed, then AISPA/Crasto can't point to it and argue the FIR/investigation be quashed now can they.
Mar 17th, 2012 at 1:46 pm anjali(Q)
We are informed by the learned P. P. that they have filed stay application in the Apex Court and the said application is likely to be heard on 22nd March, 2012.-march 15 th order in WR 3611
1] if the said stay application is connected to writ 3611 aispa would have been served the notice through mr abdi's office- it has not happened.
2]if the said stay application is connected to WR 383 then the petitioners in delhi would have been served by now -it has not happened.
3]the only thing the eow has filed in the supreme court is their affidavit in reply to WR 383 on the 13 th of march [the day of the mediation meeting ] when IO shelke visited delhi.
4]you may have read in a recent aispa update that the PP [eow] tried to misguide the bench by saying the supreme court had passed an order to allow investigations to continue.the bench asked them to provide the proof in the next hearing.
In the next hearing they of course turned up empty handed because you cannot invent supreme court orders. as is the nature of courts they were excused due to the wide berth allowed to govt dept's.
5]in light of khoslas request to allow his FIR to be quashed, it seems the eow has once again made a play for time.
What does a case involving the state of AP have to do with a petition trying to quash a Mumbai EOW investigation?-soapbox
If the EOW can get the James writ 383 stayed, then AISPA/Crasto can't point to it and argue the FIR/investigation be quashed now can they.-soapbox
the FIR [mumbai] needs to be quashed because the complainant wants to retract it. his right in this matter is indisputable.
also, the andhra investigation is based on an FIR lodged by corporate frauds watch.
So why is AISPA paying off Khoosla, not SAOL? -chang
1]saol is not a party in 3611.besides it's banking is currently disabled.
2]aispa is not yet reinstated in 3611 and has not paid.
3]castro ,thought NOT mentioned in the said FIR was erroneously arrested by the eow and thus becomes an accused in the said fir.
4] khoslas affidavit said he would accept payment from the company or any of the accused in the matter.hence castro has made the payment [collected from various panelists willing to help].
The stay is about annulating the agreement between Kkhosla and Bahirwani/Crasto.-norway
how can the state interfere in a private agreement between two citizens? not possible.
in yesterdays article in midday ,the reporter, who has been present for the 3611 hearings regularly,has clearly said that the mediator appointed by the SC is calculating how many people wish to EXIT the company.
since this blog has relied heavily on media reports in the past i feel that in fairness you should not ignore this mention of EXIT in a popular newspaper.
Mar 17th, 2012 at 3:52 pm Vikky(Q)
>> anjali..
If the stay application is not connected with WP(Criminal) 3611/2011 of High Court & also WP(Civil) 383/2011 of Supreme Court then to which it may be connected?
Why Public Prosecutor has filed stay application in the Apex Court & for what purpose it was given in the order as the said application is likely to be heard on 22nd March, 2012. Based on that 27th March, 2012 hearing will be taking place.
May be after hearing of stay application on 22nd March 2012, gets over or completed they may be serving notices to the concerned parties..
Why can't that Stay Application is against Navniit Tarachand Khosla by the EOW asking him to pursue the complaint and asking him to not withdraw the complaint since the case is a 'watertight case' in which EOW has collected some important evidences against the company at this final time..
Even Oz also telling that EOW has…
May be after hearing of stay application on 22nd March 2012-vikky
how can there be a hearing of a stay application without informing the party [aispa or supreme court panelists]affected by it. in any hearing all concerned parties have to be present and to be present they have to have been served notices in the said matter.
hy can't that Stay Application is against Navniit Tarachand Khosla by the EOW asking him to pursue the complaint-vikky
no state authority including the police or the courts can interfere with an individuals choice to make or retract a complaint.
personally i find this 'stay application' of the eow, fictitious.
Mar 17th, 2012 at 5:40 pm M_Norway(Q)
anjali: since this blog has relied heavily on media reports in the past i feel that in fairness you should not ignore this mention of EXIT in a popular newspaper.
I haven't ignored it, but it didn't state any reliable sources. So far, the Exit Policy has never been confirmed by any officials, only by "pretend to be's". And now it's NEEDED to get it confirmed by the Supreme Court, because of the deadline 31. March.
There's other reasons, too. The Exit Policy was set up in September 2011, long before any mediation. They haven't changed anything in the possible misleading points, and I doubt a former Chief Justice would have agreed in unclear conditions.
I'll guess the Exit Policy is very important for AISPA and Speak Asia, so there shouldn't be much of a problem to get it confirmed by the Supreme Court.
It will be a terrible mistake if it hasn't been ordered by the Supreme Court or retd. Justice R.C. Lahoti, so a formal confirmation is absolutely needed.
Mar 17th, 2012 at 5:50 pm ruff(Q)
if you are so confident that spekasia is fake than you fight for 20lakh people and help them to get their money back….can you do that do you have guts in you to help 20 lakh people are you a true indian come on answer me..
it will be a terrible mistake if it hasn't been ordered by the Supreme Court or retd. Justice R.C. Lahoti, so a formal confirmation is absolutely needed
a formal confirmation from the mediators office can come only when the mediator has access to the data he requires from the company's site.as of now, the 'indications' are the reqd data has not been accessed.
saol is not certifiably MAD to make announcements on it's blog spot about exit options.they have to go back to the mediation meetings,where the eow would point out their lie without stopping for breath.
Mar 17th, 2012 at 7:47 pm Oz(Q)
@ruff
Hi, I think you've completely misunderstood the purpose of BehindMLM.
The problem with the exit-option news report is that this is all they say:
Currently, the SC-appointed mediator is compiling the number of panelists who want to 'exit' the company, a process that will be completed by March 31.
Aren't these supposed to be closed-door meetings? So where are they getting their info from? The other news reports always cite the EOW/CID or some such, this MidDay report doesn't cite anyone.
Putting aside the uselessness of the exit option to the majority of panelists (most of the money was made on recruitment which far exceeds the subscription amount), until a court order mentions the exit-option it's hard to take it seriously.
It's a website form that isn't connected to anything and accepts people details with no verification or authentication. Hardly something you'd use to try and calculate the refunds of possibly thousands of people's money with.
Not to mention people who want to cancel can't, those that can't remember their details etc. The suggestion that this will all be finalised by March 31st (as per that article you keep harping on about) makes no sense, practically or in theory.
Regarding which case the stay application is in reference to, the 3611 judge decided to stand over the case until whichever case the hearing of the stay is in reference to.
If it's the AP case with the CID, what does that have to do with a Mumbai case asking to quash a FIR against Speak Asia? What was the argument the EOW put forth in court to convince the judge to stay over until after the stay application was heard?
Furthermore the Mumbai EOW aren't even involved in the AP CID case? It's between the CID Hyderabad and Speak Asia (?).
The Solomon James case makes much more sense because it's the case Crasto/AISPA have cited and argued that because it exists, any and all criminal proceedings and investigations into Speak Asia should be stopped (which is a load of rubbish but anyway).
If the EOW get a stay of proceedings in the 383 case then Crasto and AISPA can't point to it and their argument goes bust.
For the EOW to put in an application and the timing of Kkhosla's deal suggests this might have been in the pipeline for a while.
Yet to date we've seen none.
If the EOW get a stay of proceedings in the 383 case then Crasto and AISPA can't point to it and their argument goes bust.-soapbox
1]the midday reporter was reporting on the basis of what he heard in the high court mumbai.i have previously told you justice lahoti's interim reports were read out in the high court.
2] if the eow has filed an application for stay of 383 then this would be public knowledge by now as the panelists in delhi would have recd notices by now which they haven't.
3]khosla has taken back his complaint and asked the high court to quash the FIR arising out of it.so it is no longer necessary to look in any direction for help to quash this fir.khosla has done the job for us.
1]the midday reporter was reporting on the basis of what he heard in the high court mumbai.
Well here's the problem. This is what Speak Asia have said:
Any other members of the Speak Asians family who still want to exercise the exit option can do so till 31st March 2012.
Yet this guy is saying the process will be completeted by March 31st. These two explanations are at odds with eachother. One says the entire process will be completed by the end of March and the other that panelists will no longer be able to apply for the exit option after the end of March.
Furthermore despite allegedly being mentioned in court, that still doesn't change the fact that the exit option hasn't been mentioned on any order in any court. Till that happens there's no clarification (if any) as to what the exit option even means.
Again, I'll put forth the question asking how this data can be used to calculate or verify anything when all it is is a form that accepts any information from anyone with no verification, authentication or validation?
2] if the eow has filed an application for stay of 383 then this would be public knowledge by now
Then explain why a judge saw fit to stand over the Mumbai case on the basis of a stay application having been filed in AP by the CID?
There's obviously something going on otherwise why didn't the court dissolve the FIR and dispose of the case right then and there. The EOW didn't order the stay over, the judge did so obviously there's some merit to the request.
@anju
Then I'll guess the Supreme Court and/or Justice R.C. Lahoti will confirm this method, if I send an e-mail to the Supreme Court?
Thanks. It seems to be a wise idea to let me ask questions to the Supreme Court. 🙂
I'm not fighting for or against anyone, but I'm trying to get the Exit Policy verified by reliable sources.
Of course I'm not a true Indian, since I have a country-name as part of my nickname. The fight goes on in court, and I'm not a lawyer.
I have made a temporarily "raw model" for an enquiry to the Supreme Court, but it will need some spell- and grammar checking.
It's only a "raw model", so I will probably make a few changes (delay it, and evaluate it a couple of times).
Information about procedures in WRIT 383/2011 "Solomon Jemes & Ors."
I have questions about the procedures they are following in the Lahoti Committee, the mediation process ordered by the Supreme Court in relation to WRIT 383/2011, or where this information can be found on the official websites of the Supreme Court. I have had access to court orders in this case, so my questions are about some of the procedures.
The reasons for asking:
I have been answering questions in 2 blogs related to this case, where some of the readers have been concerned about some of the procedures. A party related to Respondent no. 3 (Speak Asia) and/or Respondent no. 4 (Haren Ventures) has released a specific procedure called Exit Policy, and claim this procedure to be part of the procedures in the mediation process held by retd. Justice R.C. Lahoti. The party that has set up the website with the Exit Policy hasn't been identified, but party confirming it as official part of the mediation process is Ashok Bahirwani at Speakasia Panelist Association India (SPAI, formerly AISPA).
The "Exit Policy" is an agreement between the repondent(s) and parties with interests in the case, added as parties by the Petitioners. They will have to sign an agreement with Respondent no. 3 if they want their money back, and a deadline for signing it is set to 31st March 2012. This method has never been mentioned in any order from the Supreme Court, or in any official information released by retd. Justice R.C. Lahoti to the public.
The Exit Policy was set up in September 2011, long before the mediation process was ordered by the Supreme Court. It was early pointed out that some of the points in the agreement was unclear and possibly misleading, and these points haven't been corrected in the mediation process.
Questionable points in the Exit Policy:
The agreement use the definition "Subscription Costs", without explaining further what this definition is covering. "Subscription Costs" is described in other material as an amount of $220, for the subscription of e-zines for a year. "Subscription amounts" is mentioned in the original filing of WRIT 383/2011, but the claims related to "Subscription amounts" is different from those presented in the Exit Policy, where "Subscripion amounts" only relates to refund of money from Respondent no. 4 (Haren Ventures).
The prayer in the petition is:
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 (Speak Asia) to disburse the payments due to the Petitioners & other panelists against the reward points earned by the panelists.
Also to direct Respondent No. 4 (Haren Ventures) to refund the subscription amounts due to the Petitioners & other subscribers for the period the e-magazine was not provided.
The conditions in the Exit Policy will heavily extend the original claim, and this solution has never been confirmed by any order from the Supreme Court. This creates alot of confusion among the parties that are offered to sign this agreement as a part of a payment solution.
Most participants in Speak Asia have invested alot more than the subscription costs, but I don't have any details about the average number of panels and subpanels. One of those who asked questions on the internet had invested 2 lakh 33,000 Rs (3 IDs, 20 subpanels). An unclear agreement will put him at risk of loosing most of this amount if he signs it.
The agreement seems to have been exended from the original claim, in the way that people will have to drop further claims against Respondent no. 3 (Speak Asia), in order to get money refunded from Respondent no. 4 (Haren Ventures).
Speakasia Panelist Association India
The meanings of the agreement have been explained by Ashok Bahirwani, on what is considered to be an official website for information to the parties – aispa.co.in. This explanation leaves some doubts about the final decision maker in this case.
Because it deals with explaining an official document of the company SAOL the final word lies with the company and all clarifications will be subject to the company's final interpretation and decision.
Is this Exit Policy a part of an official procedure ordered by the Supreme Court, and can it be verified somewhere on the Supreme Court's websites?
This enquiry is related to normal use of internet, where people are asking for second opinions rather than professional advise. Material related to this enquiry will be posted on two blogs.
Since my question is related to use of the internet, I will prefer to be anonymous if copies of this e-mail is distributed to anyone, including to parties in this case. I'm not involved in this case in any way, so my personalia shouldn't be important to anyone.
1. http://speakasiamarketing.com/ (the Exit Policy)
2. http://www.aispa.co.in/view.php?idd=82 (interpretation of what the Exit Policy means and covers)
1. Exit_Policy_fullscreen.jpg (screenshot in resolution 1440×870, covering most of the agreement in source #1)
Please add comments and improvements.
Mar 17th, 2012 at 10:18 pm anjali(Q)
these two explanations are at odds with eachother. One says the entire process will be completed by the end of March and the other that panelists will no longer be able to apply for the exit option after the end of March.-soapbox
come on, your'e asking for perfection from our press? the exit option can be applied to upto march 31st.the collation of all the data will follow after that. then confirming this data against the site data and then payments.
then explain why a judge saw fit to stand over the Mumbai case on the basis of a stay application having been filed in AP by the CID?-soapbox
the judge saw fit to stand over the mumbai case because the PP said they had filed a stay which will come up for hearing on the 22 nd march.the judge has to give benefit of doubt.
even when the PP had said some hearings previously that the supreme court had passed an order saying investigations must continue, the judge had to give them benefit of doubt and the matter was delayed to the next hearing. the court can leave no room for doubt.
to the best of my knowledge NO such stay application has been made as on 17 th march 2011. lawyers will know such things. they are not sleeping on their jobs.
Thanks. It seems to be a wise idea to let me ask questions to the Supreme Court.-norway
sure, go ahead.don't forget to lecture the court on it's 'limitations'!
Mar 17th, 2012 at 11:38 pm M_Norway(Q)
anjali:
A raw model of it is currently awaiting moderation. It was a "quick and dirty job", done in 45 minutes, so I'll guess I will have to make some improvements, do some spell- and grammar checking, etc.
I don't think they will need any analysing.
come on, your'e asking for perfection from our press?
No, just doubting where this report sourced its information, seeing as they didn't cite a source. The information seems bogus, it wasn't credited to the court or Lahoti.
I'll retain that until mention of the exit option appears in a court order it's suspect.
the judge saw fit to stand over the mumbai case because the PP said they had filed a stay
Come now, the case the stay was filed in would have to be relevant to the AISPA 3611 case. Clearly the judge is convinced a succesfull stay application will impact any judgement in the 3611 case.
Furthermore the PP said 'they' have filed the stay. Mumbai EOW aren't involved in the AP CID case (?).
The only Supreme Court Speak Asia case the Mumbai EOW are involved in is the James 383 writ.
to the best of my knowledge NO such stay application has been made
Well unless you clarify who you are, that doesn't mean much. To the best of my local butcher's knowledge no stay application has been made either. But that doesn't mean one hasn't been made now does it.
lawyers will know such things. they are not sleeping on their jobs.
Do we have confirmation stay applications are served on all parties involved? I tried loading up the Supreme Court rules to check but it was downloading excruciatingly slowly.
Mar 17th, 2012 at 11:52 pm Vikky(Q)
>> M_Norway..
That's nice, in detail..
Please go ahead, all the best (best of luck!), hope you are asking the question on behalf of the members involved with SpeakAsia Online (particularly for those people i.e. SpeakAsia members / panelists who visit your Blogsite for getting genuine information & present status about the company)
and also you might be using your actual name with your original identity since its the procedure to follow. Simultaneously kindly follow all formalities, procedures, rules and regulations and other parameters & whatever it is.. before mailing them.
I think members involved with the company might be the eligible persons to ask such a query in supreme court of India.
Please help all members by posting the reply once if you get anything from the court.
That'll be a great help! Thanks.
Thanks for the reply.. Wishing you all luck in Speak Asia..
Mar 18th, 2012 at 12:44 am K. Chang(Q)
What we need is a flow chart detailing which case is related to what between who and whom.
Regarding Anjali's comment:
anjali: 1]saol is not a party in 3611.
3611 from what I can tell is "AISPA vs. India" to quash Kkhosla's complaint to EOW against SAOL to recover his money. AISPA (or its representatives) is acting on behalf of SAOL. Thus, your claim that it does not involve SAOL is… odd.
besides it's banking is currently disabled.
Then where is the 50 crore as required by the court order coming from?
Not really relevant.
So AISPA is basically admitting that it is a part of SAOL by taking SAOL's side? Or is it trying to DENY it is a part of SAOL and EOW made a huge mistake mixing the two? You can't have it both ways.
No doubt about his affidavit, but the question is… What is AISPA's role in this? It is supposed to be protecting the rights of panelists and recovering money if possible. Instead, it's gathering money (i.e. TAKING MONEY) to be used to pay off others in order to protect SAOL, NOT the panelists.
State sure could if such an agreement involves something illegal, and whether that something is illegal or not is yet to be determined.
DAVINDER SINGH
Mar 18th, 2012 at 12:54 am DAVINDER SINGH(Q)
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL WHERE WHERE EOW SINCE LAST EIGHT MONTH WHY DID THEY NOT PROCEED FOR STAY SINCE LAST EIGHT MONTHS.
UNDER WHICH SECTION CAN A INVESTIGATION AGENCY FILE STAY APPLICATION. PLEASE EXPLAIN BRIEFLY.
@Vikky
Of course I'm using my real identity, and that's why I'm asking for privacy, too. That's also why I'm mentioning internet and blogs.
My strategy here has been to not use any formal procedures, but only ask one simple question about procedures. I'm not trying to interfere with a case.
It will be up to the Registrar at the Supreme Court to decide how to deal with it, if the question can be answered directly or if they will need information from some of the judges to answer it. This will possibly involve the judges, and they will have to evaluate the description of the procedure. It may be possible they will have to ask the respondents about any knowledge to this policy, if they're not able to identify it as a procedure ordered by the Supreme Court.
If the Exit Policy is a real part of the procedures, they should be able to answer it. If it's fake, then they have got a description of a possible scam related to this case. They should be able to tell me if the Exit Policy is fake.
I have also added important information about extra panels, in case someone has tried to create an impression of panelists buying only one panel each.
I'm not doing this for the panelists, since they seems to have lots of different interests. I'll guess it will be within the interests for people who evaluates the use of EXIT. And I haven't sent it to the Supreme Court yet, either. At the current stage it's only a "plan" or "method", to be used within a couple of days.
Dear OZ
I want to share some things:-
In any one of Speak Asia Cases there was lots of misguidance that was done by some people and also by media. Every time before coming of any judgment some people (the cheer leaders) start doing copy paste from one another's news / views and starts saying that "This is confirmed news ".
As far as I understand or assume, in this case there are near about 12 to 15 lawyers name from Petitioner side and all these lawyers have not been hired by any one person or 115 Panelists.
If we forget the news sections and only view judgment copies published in this case on Supreme Court website – Court is only mentioned " petitioners " the numbers whether it is 115 or 20 Lakhs is no where Mentioned by Court .
Where a Lawyer Aneesh Sharma of a law firm named "J. M. Sharma & Co., Advocates & Solicitors" had published a video which became a big controversy where its said "we (Aneesh Sharma and his team) are fighting for Speak Asia panelists first time joiners "..
This is different thing that after opposition they didn't say more further on this topic but it should not be underestimated. It can make us understand only one thing that these 12 to15 lawyers who are part of different law firms, are not paid by one person or only 115 panelists.
So it is obvious that their are more Speak Asians besides 115 panelists who have filed this case separately after the filing of Solomon James and the Apex court merged all the cases under the one headline i.e.; 'Writ Petition (Civil) 383/2011' for their money.
If there were only 115 Panelists, they must have hired a single law firm.
1st Important Thing: Not a single copy of Supreme Court's judgment order describes regarding the business restarts of Speak Asia. (It is totally assumptions of some people, the so called cheer leaders)
2nd Important Thing : Rs. 50 crore is not enough to pay 12.5 lakhs Speak Asians. If we divide 50 crore with 20 lakhs each Speak Asian will get only Rs.400 and that is not the enough money he/she have given for becoming member of Speak Asia family.
3rd Important Thing Rs. 50 crore is too much big for 115 panelists. If we divide 50 crore with 115, each person will get Rs.43 Lakhs 47 Thousand 8 Hundred 26. This is really a big amount that doesn't fit for the story.
The remarkable thing: But if it is estimated about some 50,000 Speak Asians who have filed their claim through these 12-15 lawyers who have been working for this case then amount and the story can become near to some extent i.e.; for Rs. 10000 each person.
Last and Most Important thing: If money comes for all the 12.5 lakhs Speak Asians, no doubt there will be a big / grand party among them but on the other hand if this money (Rs. 50 crore) is for the some fortunate and selected Speak Asians, they will arrange a party separately without telling to others somewhere under the sun.
After that, not a single person among rest of Asians (besides the fortunate and selected Asians) will dare to move to any single court of India against the history making company 'Speak Asia' because the company knows this thing very well.
Here is something I probably should add to an e-mail to the Supreme Court, in the description part of an e-mail:
"Speak Asia Marketing Team published a press release 1. March 2012 about the number of members who had used the Exit option, a total of 94,334 since September 2011."
http://speakasiaonlinemarketing.blogspot.com/2012/03/update-from-corporate-marketing-team.html
"This website is an official communication channel for Respondent no. 3 (Speak Asia) and/or Respondent no 4. (Haren Ventures), and has published official company updates in September and October 2011."
@davinder
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL WHERE WHERE EOW SINCE LAST EIGHT MONTH
Investigating Speak Asia… this is common knowledge?
WHY DID THEY NOT PROCEED FOR STAY SINCE LAST EIGHT MONTHS.
Because investigations are progressive. You don't have all the evidence you need merely by launching one.
UNDER WHICH SECTION CAN A INVESTIGATION AGENCY FILE STAY APPLICATION.
Under the 'we believe we have enough evidence to launch criminal proceedings against this company and don't want them scamming anymore people or paying off their top recruiters' section.
Court is only mentioned " petitioners " the numbers whether it is 115 or 20 Lakhs is no where Mentioned by Court .
"Petitioners" are the 115 signed. The James 383 writ is a petition, the petitioners are the names on that petition.
So it is obvious that their are more Speak Asians besides 115 panelists who have filed this case separately after the filing of Solomon James and the Apex court merged all the cases under the one headline i.e.; 'Writ Petition (Civil) 383/2011'
The petition itself hasn't been changed, it still only lists 115 signed petitioners. Parties have been added to the case since it was launched, but the petition still only concerns the 115 signed petitioners.
Who they hired has nothing to do with the petition itself. (Do you even need a lawyer to file a writ petition?)
I imagine you certainly don't need a lawyer to sign yourself onto a petition (before it is filed).
2nd Important Thing : Rs. 50 crore is not enough to pay 12.5 lakhs Speak Asians.
3rd Important Thing Rs. 50 crore is too much big for 115 panelists.
The order specified amounts owing to "other authorities". Nothing has been mentioned yet in an order about the split though.
All that's happened is the court asked the mediator to work out what the 115 petitioners and some "authorities" were owed, and that Speak Asia deposit that amount in 2 weeks.
After that they've yet to make any orders regarding the money. That's where we're at. Nothing else regarding the case (exit options, business restarts, websites being handed over etc.) as you note has been made mention of in any order.
Last and Most Important thing: If money comes for all the 12.5 lakhs Speak Asians, no doubt there will be a big / grand party among them
Most people earnt more than their subscription amount by recruiting others. At least those most vocal who are left clutching onto their payday dreams nearly a year after the ponzi was shut down.
They don't want their subscription amounts refunded as it means they aren't getting their recruitment commissions and their 'living off a ponzi scheme' dreams die.
Mar 18th, 2012 at 11:54 am M_Norway(Q)
Here's some info about WRIT 383/2011
https://behindmlm.com/companies/speak-asia-online/the-particulars-of-the-solomon-james-writ-383/
@Oz
Do you have a link to the source in WRIT 383/2011? The original petition the article is based on?
Someone sent me this:
Our beloved and dynamic secretary of AISPA Mr. Ashok Bahirwani has been served 72 Hrs. notice of arrest by EOW. Anticipatory bail will be heard in session court tomorrow at 2:30 pm.
Explains why Anju has been quiet the last few days.
So much for being a simple panelist…
No link, the court document was sent to me from memory. Either that or it was viewed on the Supreme Court website itself.
I have found a website that describes mediation process in detail, except for some formal parts about methods similar to the Exit Policy – where solutions from one of the parties are used.
http://vakilsearch.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/procedure-to-be-followed-during-a-mediation/
It's very detailed, but much of the information is useful in understanding the process. The article relates mostly to India, but it is mostly about negotiations between two parties (not 1.2 million). Examples used there are focusing mostly on employer/employee mediations.
Do you still have the copy? If it was sent to you.
jutamaro
Mar 19th, 2012 at 4:11 pm jutamaro(Q)
Dear Navniit
Great to read that you got your payment. I hope it included your court fees and other expenses todate. Who paid you is not important. This is the way to go.
So all panelists all over India who agree that Bahirwani and his family members are just crapping and misleading the panelists should go ahead and start filing FIRs against Speak Asia. Try to make it a criminal case. And then Ashok will step in and pay you all off with costs as soon you become a thorn in his backside.
What is wrong with dole being collected from brainwashed panelists on the side of AISPA? Fools will remain fools.
Mar 19th, 2012 at 6:59 pm mike(Q)
31st March 2012, Saturday at 10:00 AM has been decided for the first Annual general body meeting by AISPA that is going to be held at Vanmali Hall, 1st floor, opp. Chabildas high school,Chabildas road, Near-Dadar railway station, Dadar west, Mumbai- 400 028.
It will be better to the EOW Mumbai to catch red handed all the so called leaders of AISPA along with their members and send them permanently behind the bars.
soori
Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:54 am soori(Q)
Why you want all the AISPA leaders and members to be behind the bars ? For What crime they should be put inside ? Have they forced any body to believe what they say ?
They are expressing their views plans and ideas in their website for whoever is interested in them. Its up to the individual to trust or suspect them. Some trust and some others suspect.
See we are in oz's house. Do you think all who came here believe what is discussed here. Here also same case some strongly believe and some strongly suspect and object. Is oz forcing me or you to believe his analysis. He is just doing his job. Analysing what is what of MLM companies.
You know there may be some like you who may want oz and his fellow writers to be put permanently behind bars as you want AISPA Leaders and members. . Whether to believe jesus or allah or paramathma is left to you. . You cant say propagators of any religion should be put behind the bars. .
If EOW has a real cause to send them all behind bars. It will definitely do it. . Or if you really have a reason for which they should be put permanently behind bars you are very free to give a complaint on them.
A request for information from the Supreme Court was sent NOW.
M_Norway: I have made a temporarily "raw model" for an enquiry to the Supreme Court, but it will need some spell- and grammar checking.
I made it shorter and easier to read, but I also removed some parts (some details). I also dropped Bahirwani as a source.
Sorry M_Norway you asked the other day about the source of the writ 383 petition. I had a look at my archives and couldn't see it.
I'm thinking I must have got it off Facebook then, and unfortunately they don't archive. Either that or I nuked the email to protect the source (although I imagine I would have kept a copy in that case, which I don't have).
Mar 23rd, 2012 at 9:32 pm jutamaro(Q)
What do u make of the undermentioned propaganda being emailed to all panelists by SAOL's Online Marketing Team?
COMPANY STATEMENT
Mumbai High Court Puts A Stop To Ongoing Investigations on SpeakAsia
SpeakAsia is pleased to note that the complainant, Navnit Tarachand Khosla, had withdrawn his complaint against SpeakAsia in a filed affidavit on 21 March 2012, as he had his subscription amount returned to him.
With this development, SpeakAsia hopes it can start on the road to resume its operations soon.
SpeakAsia would like to place on record its gratitude to the panelists who stood behind the company during these trying times.
SpeakAsia Corporate Marketing Team
Leave a Reply...
SofTrade AI Review: 2% to 4% daily ROI forex trading Ponzi
MMM BSC Review: PAX MMM Global Ponzi reboot
Cloud Token lets investors leave but refuses to pay them
BitConnect class-action reduced to three defendants
Samoa Worship Centre in NZ tied to OneCoin Ponzi
Jewel Sanitary Napkins Review: Graphene insert sanitary pads?
FOW Business Review: FOW Token Ponzi scheme
scammerssuck: "This can't be a scam…. Rune Fjorft is pimping it…. LOL. TOTAL..."
Oz: "It is a gamble. But also remember Cloud Token hasn't been paying returns since last..."
Oz: "This should be obvious, but an MLM company in which people are paying for a product/service..."
Oz: "No idea. Mandatory reinvestment is every 100 days, that's as far as I looked into."
Oz: "The guy is a salesman a professional international salesman and he was hired by a company..."
MLM News
Mind Capital denies securities fraud (lol), reveals Ponzi execs
Mark Scott's OneCoin sentencing delayed till April 2020
Success By Health a $7 million pyramid scheme, alleges FTC
BitClub Network scammers plead not guilty, Weeks want out
MLM Reviews
Cryptify Trading Review: Telegram bot Ponzi
My Ad Magnet Review: $1 AdPack Ponzi scheme
Most Wanted (7 days)
OneCoin website down, DNS record under investigation
Crowd1 Review: "Owner rights" virtual shares investment fraud
BitClub Network website pulled offline
Mirror Trading International Review: Forex trading daily returns
Million Money Review: 0.03 ETH 2x5 matrix gifting
Elamant Review: Saivian receipt rebate Ponzi clone
© 2009-2020 BehindMLM
Privacy Policy - DMCA Policy
All trademarks, logos and images are copyright of their respective owners and used under the provision of Fair Use.
BehindMLM's advertising partners use cookies to collect data for ad personalization and measurement. For more information on use of collected data and cookies please refer to our Privacy Policy.Accept and closePrivacy Policy