Corporate Affairs Delays : A Tale of Alleged Fraud and Bureaucratic Delay

This post outlines a persistent grievance about cheating of CLUB HIGH SKY, which has raised significant concerns among its members and the general public.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) received the grievance, acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations brought forth.
Yet, delays in corporate affairs are becoming a major issue that compounds the frustration of the stakeholders involved.
The grievance concerns an allegation of fraud that a company registered in Kanpur committed, which not only affects the victims financially but also undermines public trust in corporate governance.
This situation highlights significant concerns about the pace of investigation and regulatory oversight, prompting calls for a more efficient and responsive system to handle such allegations in a timely manner to prevent further injustices and restore confidence in the corporate sector.

---

The Core Complaint: Cheating by a Registered Company and Corporate Affairs Delays action

The central issue revolves around the company M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED, which the complainant, Yogi M. P. Singh (also known as Mahesh Pratap Singh alias Yogi M. P. Singh), alleges is a “fraud company” whose sole job is to “cheat the innocent and gullible people.
The allegations suggest that the company employs deceptive practices aimed at exploiting individuals who are unaware of its malicious intentions, engaging in activities that mislead potential clients about the nature and quality of the services offered.
This ominous label of being a fraud company raises serious concerns about the ethical standards and transparency of their business operations, ultimately demanding a closer investigation into their modus operandi and the potential impact on unsuspecting consumers.
Such claims not only tarnish the reputation of the entity in question but also highlight the pressing need for regulatory oversight to safeguard public interests in the face of such predatory practices.

• Victim: CA Ravi Pratap Singh
• Amount Allegedly Cheated: Rs. 1,26,000
• Accused Entity: M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED, registered with the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Kanpur.

The complainant emphasizes that the company is “ipso facto obvious from the working style” to be fraudulent. Yet, it continues to run despite ongoing corporate affairs delays impacting resolution.

---

Chronology of Grievances and Actions Taken

Two key grievance registration numbers reveal the long-drawn-out nature of the complaint:

Grievance ID	Date of Receipt	Ministry/Department	Subject	Status
DCOYA/E/2023/0008934	28/11/2023	Corporate Affairs	Questioning the leniency of ROC Kanpur against fraud companies.	Disposed (Status: Poor/Not Resolved)
DCOYA/E/2024/0006887	17/11/2024	Corporate Affairs / SFIO	Delay in investigation concerning the Rs. 1,26,000 cheating.	Under Process (As of 17/11/2024)

Concerns About the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Kanpur

The ROC, Uttar Pradesh (UP), has acknowledged the complaint and taken actions to address the issues raised by the complainant. However, despite these efforts, the complainant remains unsatisfied with the outcome, feeling that the resolution provided does not adequately meet their expectations or address all their concerns.
They are also unhappy with the speed of resolution, which highlights ongoing corporate affairs delays that have been a source of frustration.
The extended timeframe for resolving such matters not only affects the complainant’s situation but also raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes in place for handling such complaints within the department.

1. Letters Sent to Company: The ROC UP stated that they “took up the complaint with the company.” They did this via official letters dated 07.03.2023 and 17.07.2023.
2. Reminder Sent: The ROC Kanpur reportedly sent a reminder to M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED. They also sent it to its director, SAYED AHMAD MOHSIN. They requested that the company reply within 15 days.
3. The “Awaited Response” Loop: The complainant notes that an ROC staff member, Mr. Ramesh Pal, closed the grievance. He remarked that the company has taken up the matter. The complainant points out that he has awaited this response for over nine months. He suggests that the staff are deliberately procrastinating. They are mocking the law of the land.

NCH and Consumer Commission Advice

The National Consumer Helpline (NCH) agent remarked that the company did not respond after forwarding the grievance. The applicant should pursue the case further. They can file a case at the designated Consumer Commission online via edaakhil.nic.in.

---

SFIO Involvement and Current Status

The more recent grievance (DCOYA/E/2024/0006887) explicitly concerns the delay in investigation. The complaint has escalated to the Serious Fraud Investigation Organization (SFIO) amidst reports of corporate affairs delays.

• Current Status: Under process (as of 17/11/2024).
• Officer Concerned: Shri Munish Garg (Sr. Assistant Director), SFIO.
• SFIO Contact Details: SFIO, Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex New Delhi; Email: munish.g@sfio.nic.in; Contact Number: 01124369242.

The complainant rated the feedback on an earlier action as Poor with a Not Resolved status on 2023-09-25. They are seeking action against the company and requesting direction for the refund of money based on RBI Guidelines.

---

Critical Questions for Regulatory Efficacy

The complainant’s remarks raise serious questions about the effectiveness and integrity of the regulatory system, highlighting a potential disconnect between its intended purpose and actual performance.
This situation not only calls into question the accountability mechanisms in place but also suggests that there may be underlying issues that compromise public trust.
As stakeholders consider the implications of these remarks, it becomes increasingly crucial to address the specific concerns raised and initiate a comprehensive review of regulatory practices to ensure they align with best practices and uphold the principles of transparency and fairness.

• Why is the ROC Kanpur lenient? They are slow in taking action against companies with fraudulent activities. These activities are “ipso facto obvious” and lead to corporate affairs delays.
• Is the prolonged waiting period for a response from the accused company a genuine delay or a tactic of procrastination?
• Does the obvious inaction suggest that public staff are shielding “fraudulent elements”? Does it give the impression that “the entire government machinery stands in the row of the fraudulent elements”?

The situation, as described, paints a picture where a registered company allegedly defrauds citizens. Over a year, citizens have filed multiple complaints. Yet, the regulatory process seems stuck in a loop of “response awaited.” This situation exacerbates corporate affairs delays. It leaves the aggrieved party without justice or resolution.

Registrar of company Kanpur is awaiting reply of CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED for more than 9 months