FRAUD ALERT: CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED Cheated Rs. 1,26,000 from CA Ravi Pratap Singh — A Detailed Fraud Alert and Grievance Analysis

Fraud Alert: Alleged Cheating by CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED — Grievance, Appeal, and ROC Analysis

This Fraud Alert post examines a key appeal. Mahesh Pratap Singh (alias Yogi M. P. Singh) filed it against the Registrar of Companies (ROC) Kanpur. The appeal concerns an alleged fraud of Rs. 1,26,000 that M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED committed against CA Ravi Pratap Singh. Consequently, this case serves as a public Fraud Alert for anyone dealing with CLUB HIGH SKY.

---

Grievance and Appeal Overview

Fraud Alert — M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED sits at the centre of this case. The company, registered with the ROC Kanpur, allegedly defrauded CA Ravi Pratap Singh out of ₹1,26,000. Furthermore, it neither delivers the promised services nor refunds the amount. As a result, this CLUB HIGH SKY Fraud Alert highlights a serious consumer grievance that demands immediate regulatory attention.

Aggrieved Person	CA Ravi Pratap Singh (Mentioned in the grievance)
Complainant/Appellant	Mahesh Pratap Singh (alias Yogi M. P. Singh)
Alleged Cheater	M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED
Amount Involved	₹1,26,000
Initial Grievance No.	DCOYA/E/2024/0006887 (Date of receipt: 17/11/2024)
Appeal Number	DCOYA/E/A/24/0002421 (Appeal Recieved Date: 05/12/2024)

ROC’s Stance and Initial Disposal

The Registrar of Companies (ROC) Uttar Pradesh initially disposed of the grievance (DCOYA/E/2024/0006887). Specifically, it issued a final reply stating:

It is to inform you that this office of Registrar of Companies functions under the aegis of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which administers and regulates the Companies Act, 2013… In this connection, your complaint has been examined, and it has been found that the matter of complaint relates to refundable security deposit, cheating, etc., of the subject company, which does not fall within the purview of this office.

The ROC directed the complainant to cite a specific breach of the Companies Act with supporting evidence. Alternatively, it instructed them to approach the appropriate forum, authority, or court. As a result, the case shifted from a Companies Act issue to a civil, consumer, or cheating dispute — one that the police or Consumer Commissions handle.

Grounds for Appeal and Appellant’s Inquiries

The appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, challenged the ROC’s disposal by filing an appeal. In doing so, he issued a strong Fraud Alert against CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED. Moreover, he expressed concern that the ROC grants licenses to companies allegedly involved in fraudulent activities. He therefore argued that CLUB HIGH SKY’s license should be cancelled on the basis of “substantial evidence.”

The appeal raised five sharp questions/inquiries to the appellate authority:

1. Provide the name and designation of the public staff member who made the “illogical and absurd comment” to dispose of the grievance.
2. Provide the company law which allows a “cheater company to loot the citizens of this country.”
3. Comment on the delay, as the matter has been pending for over a year.
4. The appeal also raises a wider Fraud Alert. It highlights concerns that a significant number of companies registered with the ROC’s office — potentially similar to CLUB HIGH SKY — may be engaging in irregular and fraudulent activities.
5. Emphasise the gravity of the situation where ₹1,26,000 was taken without providing service or a refund.

Appellate Authority’s Direction

The appeal (DCOYA/E/A/24/0002421) was closed on 25/06/2025 with a specific direction, indicating that the matter is still under active consideration pending documentation:

Closing Remarks: Please send proof of payment, any relevant agreement, or other supporting documents for your case to O/o ROC Kanpur at roc.kanpur@mca.gov.in. Your complaint will be addressed. This order replaced the earlier decision. Now, the appellant must provide proof to the ROC, Kanpur, for further action — a critical step in pursuing this CLUB HIGH SKY Fraud Alert to its conclusion.or further action.

Compliance with Appellate Direction (June 30, 2025)

In response, Mahesh Pratap Singh emailed ROC Kanpur on June 30, 2025, attaching the requested documents (Ravi.pdf and ROCKanpur.pdf).

The email specified the contents of the attached documents:

• Proof of Payment/Agreement: Ravi.pdf pages 5 (approval form) and 6-12 (agreement).
• Company Communication: ROCKanpur.pdf pages 1-2 (ROC to company) and 3-10 (applicant and company staff communication showing breach).

The email confirms that this submission complies with the appellate authority’s direction.

---

Conclusion and Next Steps

Initially, the ROC treated the CLUB HIGH SKY complaint as a civil matter. However, the Fraud Alert raised through the appeal process prompted them to request evidence. As a result, the complainant submitted proof of payment and an agreement to the ROC, Kanpur. This change means the CLUB HIGH SKY Fraud Alert remains active, and the regulatory process has progressed to a new stage.

ROC Kanpur will now examine the submitted evidence. It will then address the complaint against M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED, as the appellate authority directed. Ultimately, this step will determine whether CLUB HIGH SKY’s conduct violates the Companies Act and falls under the ROC’s jurisdiction. If not, the ROC will refer the applicant to a Consumer Commission or a Civil Court for contract breach remedies.

Registrar of Companies (ROC) Jurisdiction in Cheating and Contract Disputes

The ROC Kanpur’s response—that refundable security deposit and cheating matters “do not come under the purview of this office”—fits with its traditional regulatory role.

Below is a clear breakdown of the ROC’s actual jurisdiction. It also outlines the options available for Fraud Alert grievances like the one concerning M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED — and what victims of CLUB HIGH SKY-type fraud can do next.

---

1.  ROC’s Primary Jurisdiction: Regulatory and Compliance

The Registrar of Companies (ROC) and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) administer and enforce the Companies Act, 2013. Their focus, therefore, centres on ensuring companies meet internal and statutory compliance requirements. They do not, however, resolve private commercial or consumer disputes.

For official reference, you can visit the two concerned public authorities directly:

1. Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) — Complaints & Grievance Portal:

2. Registrar of Companies (ROC) Kanpur — Official MCA Contact Page:

Incorporation	Registering companies, issuing Certificates of Incorporation.	Section 7
Statutory Filing	Ensuring mandatory documents (Annual Returns, Financial Statements, etc.) are filed.	Section 137
Compliance	Imposing penalties for non-compliance with procedural requirements.	Sections 206, 207
Investigation Referral	On discovery of serious irregularities or fraud, initiating inquiry and referring the case to higher authorities.	Section 208
Striking Off	Removing the name of defunct or non-compliant companies from the register.	Section 248

2.  ROC’s Role in Allegations of Cheating and Fraud (CLUB HIGH SKY & Fraud Alert)

The ROC does not typically handle contract breaches or recover personal funds. Nevertheless, a Fraud Alert complaint like the one against CLUB HIGH SKY can be escalated. This happens when the acts involved constitute corporate fraud or threaten the public interest.

• Corporate fraud (Section 447): The Companies Act, 2013 includes a strict provision against corporate fraud under Section 447. If authorities deem the alleged cheating of ₹1,26,000 part of a larger, systemic fraud — one designed to deceive customers for undue advantage — the ROC holds the power to initiate an inquiry.
  • If the case proves serious, the ROC can refer it to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). Alternatively, it can file a complaint directly with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
  • Importantly, the ROC acts to punish Companies Act violations and protect the public — not to settle private contracts.

3.  The Correct Forums for Dispute Resolution

The ROC’s advice to seek an appropriate forum is, in fact, legally sound for private grievances of this type. (CLUB HIGH SKY & Fraud Alert)

In practice, the appellate authority’s instruction to submit proof of payment and agreement to the ROC marks a notable shift. Consequently, it gives the ROC the opportunity to assess whether the situation goes beyond refundable security issues. This could, in turn, elevate the matter to a compliance failure — such as accepting illegal deposits — or even a possible fraud under the Companies Act.

Fraud Alert Summary: The ROC holds direct power only over regulatory action against CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED — such as fines, prosecution, or striking its name off the register. For the refund of ₹1,26,000, therefore, the most effective route remains the Consumer Commission or a Civil Court. That said, a fraud finding against CLUB HIGH SKY by the ROC or SFIO could significantly strengthen that case. This CLUB HIGH SKY Fraud Alert will be updated as the case progresses. CLUB HIGH SKY Fraud Alert will be updated as the case progresses.