Allegations of Corporate Fraud: The Case of M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED
Yogi M. P. Singh (also known as Mahesh Pratap Singh) has filed formal grievances with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), detailing various irregularities that he believes require immediate attention.
In addition to this, he has also submitted an appeal to the Registrar of Companies (ROC), Kanpur, expressing his concerns about the legitimacy of certain business practices.
These grievances highlight serious allegations of cheating against a registered company, M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED, which has come under scrutiny for its questionable activities.
The primary focus of the allegations revolves around a significant amount of Rs. 1,26,000 that was allegedly taken from CA Ravi Pratap Singh under misleading pretenses, raising red flags about the operational transparency and ethical conduct of the company.
Singh’s actions are motivated by a desire for accountability and justice, as he seeks to protect the interests of those affected by the alleged fraud and to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
The Core Complaint about CLUB HIGH SKY PRIVATE LIMITED: Cheating and Delay in Action
The central issue revolves around the company, M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED. The complainant claims it exists solely to “cheat the innocent and gullible people,” suggesting that the operations of the company are driven by deceptive practices aimed at exploiting vulnerable individuals.
Nonetheless, CLUB HIGH SKY PRIVATE LIMITED also faces other challenges that extend beyond cheating allegations; these challenges include navigating a complex regulatory environment, dealing with fluctuating market conditions, and addressing growing competition from other firms that threaten its market share.
Furthermore, the company must manage public perception and maintain customer trust, which are critical for long-term sustainability in today’s rapidly changing business landscape.
Key Grievances Filed
- Grievance 1 (DCOYA/E/2024/0006887 – Date of Receipt: 17/11/2024): The Serious Fraud Investigation Organisation (SFIO) received the complaint. The Corporate Affairs Ministry handles it. The complaint cites “Delay in investigation” into the matter.
- Grievance 2 (DCOYA/E/2023/0008934 – Date of Receipt: 28/11/2023): This complaint questioned the leniency of ROC Kanpur. It questioned their action against the company. It stated that the non-provision of services or refund after taking Rs. 1,26,000 indicates a clear motive to loot.
The ROC Kanpur reportedly sent reminders to the company. They also sent reminders to its director, SAYED AHMAD MOHSIN. However, they did not inform the complainant of the outcome.
Official Response and Grievance Closure
The official response from the ROC Kanpur led to the closure of the initial grievance. The complainant deemed this response “Poor” and “Not Resolved.” They even suggested that CLUB HIGH SKY PRIVATE LIMITED faces ongoing issues due to delays.
The ROC’s Stance
The ROC Kanpur, whose office “administers and regulates the Companies Act, 2013,” closed the case with the following remarks on 05/12/2024: after careful consideration of all submitted documents and evidence, it was determined that the case did not warrant further investigation at this time.
The office emphasized its commitment to upholding the integrity of corporate governance and ensuring compliance with legal frameworks, while reaffirming the importance of transparency within business practices.
They encouraged all stakeholders to adhere to the regulatory standards set forth by the Companies Act to promote a healthy business environment.
- The matter of complaint is related to “refundable security deposit, cheating etc.”, which “does not come under the preview of this office.”
- The office can only take action on non-compliance/violation of the Company Act, which must specifically include relevant evidence.
- “The appropriate forum/Authorities/Court of Law advised the complainant to approach.”
The Appeal: Seeking Accountability and Cancellation of License of CLUB HIGH SKY PRIVATE LIMITED
The complainant filed an appeal immediately after the closure, seeking to challenge the decision made by the relevant authority.
Appeal Number: DCOYA/E/A/24/0002421 – Date of Receipt: 05/12/2024. In their appeal, they presented a detailed argument emphasizing that the ROC’s closing remarks were “illogical and absurd,” stating that these conclusions not only lacked a solid foundation but also failed to consider significant evidence that had been previously submitted.
The complainant insisted that a thorough review of the case was necessary to rectify what they perceived as a grave misunderstanding of the facts at hand and to ensure fairness in the process.
Key Points Raised in the Appeal
The appeal, made under Article 51 A of the Constitution of India, makes several serious demands:
- Cancellation of License: The appellant asserts that the government is essentially “providing licence to the looters.” The license of such a fraud company must be cancelled due to substantial evidence.
- Request for Identification: The appellant demands the name and designation of the public staff. This is for identifying who made the “illogical and absurd comment” to dispose of the grievance.
- Questioning of Law: The appeal questions the company law. This law allows a cheater company to loot the citizens of this country.
- Allegation of Corruption: The appellant claims the office is “escaping from the matter because of corruption.” The issue had been pending for over a year and involves Club High Sky Private Limited.
Ramesh Pal (Assistant ROC) is currently overseeing the appeal. Which marked as “Appeal Received.”. The ROC UP office in Kanpur has provided contact details.
The Bottom Line: A Call for Proper Redressal
The series of actions reveals a significant disconnect. The complainant expects the regulating body to intervene against alleged fraud and cheating, but the ROC’s official mandate limits its authority strictly to violations of the Companies Act.
The complainant has received advice from an NCH Agent. The agent recommended filing a case at the Consumer Commission online via edaakhil.nic.in. This platform is often used for financial disputes. It addresses non-provision of services and refund issues. These cases do not fall under the direct regulatory purview of the ROC. The ongoing appeal aims to hold the ROC accountable. The complainant believes there is a failure to protect citizens from a corporate entity registered under their jurisdiction.
CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED did not provide services and no refund of Rs.126000
Ramesh Pal (Assistant ROC) sought explanation from CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.