Navigating Consumer Grievances Against Fraudulent Company: An Analysis of the CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) Case

The multiple appeals by Mr. Yogi M. P. Singh against CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED serve as an important case study. This case highlights the jurisdictional limits of government bodies when they address consumer grievances about companies . The central dispute involves recovering one lakh twenty-six thousand rupees for hotel services that were never provided . Furthermore, the complaint asserts the company is actively involved in widespread and systemic fraudulent business activities . This structured analysis explores official responses, communications, and the relevant legal framework governing these kinds of corporate disputes .

The Grievance: Alleged Fraud and Non-Provision of Services The Complainant’s Stance

Mr. Singh’s initial complaints center on a fundamental breach of contract and systemic fraudulent activity by the company . He registered them under various numbers, including PMOPG/E/2024/0047423 and DCOYA/E/2023/0008345 .

• Financial Loss: The company has failed to refund or provide the promised services related to the payment of Rs. 1,26,000 .
• Breach of Promise: The company originally guaranteed a single property booking but failed absolutely to complete it.
• Accusation of Fraud: The complainant labels the company a “cheater.” They suggest the company’s only motive is to defraud innocent and gullible people.
• Desired Action: Mr. Singh’s specific appeal requests the cancellation of the company’s license because it is allegedly engaging in fraudulent activities .

The complainant argues that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) staff has failed. They have not addressed the core issue of the fraudulent activities. He states that they are effectively “escaping from the matter.” They are not touching the core issue in their official responses.

Timeline and Previous Actions

The sequence of events clearly illustrates the prolonged struggle Mr. Singh has faced in trying to obtain redressal (18 words).

• October 29, 2023: The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) first received the initial grievance (DCOYA/E/2023/0008345) regarding the company .
  • Action: The Ministry took up the matter with the company and subsequently awaited an official reply from them.
• November 28, 2023: The Ministry of Corporate Affairs later received a second grievance (DCOYA/E/2023/0008934) on this date .
  • Action: The company provided an inappropriate explanation via WhatsApp or chatting. This prompted the Ministry to close the case (20 words).
• February 29, 2024: Mr. Singh filed a fresh grievance (PMOPG/E/2024/0047423), detailing the Rs. 1,26,000 payment and demanding a proper explanation .
• March 24, 2024: Mr. Singh formally filed an appeal (DCOYA/E/A/24/0000554) against the government’s closure of the matter (18 words).

The Official Response and Jurisdictional Limits

The response from the government authorities, specifically RD NORTHERN REGION Officer VINOD SHARMA, consistently highlights a legal distinction. They emphasize the critical difference. This pertains to the precise jurisdiction of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) as well as the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).

The Closing Remark

The government authorities ultimately closed the appeal with a final, highly significant remark. The final remark stated that the office addressed the grievance, but the complaint relates to services outside their purview .

The Final Reply provided the complainant with a clear and concise directive regarding his options :

1. The complaint concerns services provided by the company, which falls outside the MCA/ROC office’s purview .
2. Action is only possible if relevant evidence supports the complainant’s specific grievance about non-compliance or a violation of the Companies Act .
3. The authorities advised the complainant to “approach the appropriate forum/Authorities/Court of Law, if required” for further resolution .

Understanding the ROC’s Role

The Registrar of Companies (ROC) is primarily responsible for the administrative functioning and regulation of all companies . Their primary mandate is to ensure adherence to the Companies Act, 2013, and its procedural requirements . The ROC’s mandate also includes registering companies. They ensure companies file annual returns. Moreover, They also ensure companies maintain statutory records. They investigate non-compliance with the Companies Act. This includes fraudulent incorporation or failure to maintain proper books of accounts. The ROC has the authority to impose penalties for various violations of the Companies Act .

The ROC is generally not an appropriate forum for resolving private contractual disputes. These disputes occur between a company and its consumers. Civil jurisdiction and consumer protection law govern matters concerning non-provision of services, non-refunds, or commercial contract breaches.

The Appropriate Forums for Redressal (Fraudulent Company)

The core dispute regarding the Rs. 1,26,000 payment and unprovided hotel services is fundamentally a Consumer Dispute . The official advice to approach the “appropriate forum/Authorities/Court of Law” is absolutely crucial for the next steps .

1. Consumer Protection Authority

The quickest and most direct legal route for a deficiency in services dispute is the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. People often call this the Consumer Court. It operates at District, State, or National levels, depending on the claim amount.

• Action: The complainant should file a formal complaint. The complaint should detail the service deficiency and payment. They should ask for specific relief, including a refund or compensation .
• Governing Law: The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, specifically governs consumer rights violations and various unfair trade practices (19 words).

2. Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) / Police

If Mr. Singh’s assertion is true, it indicates widespread and systemic fraudulent activities. This matter moves beyond a simple consumer dispute. It becomes a serious criminal offense .

• Action: Mr. Singh must file a formal police complaint. This is known as a First Information Report (FIR). It should be filed under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Complainants typically file this report under Section 420 (Cheating) .
• Relevance: The police or the EOW should investigate the criminal elements of this alleged large-scale fraud. They are the appropriate authority. This involves the cheating of innocent and gullible people .

3. Civil Court

An individual has the option to file a civil suit to recover a debt. They can also do so for a breach of contract outside the Consumer Commission’s jurisdiction . This is an alternative if the complainant prefers the civil route .

4. Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) Intervention (Limited)(Fraudulent Company)

Although the ROC cannot resolve the refund matter, Mr. Singh could frame his complaint around technical violations of the Companies Act. These violations arise from the alleged fraud. For instance, a large number of identical consumer complaints may indicate that company directors violated their fiduciary duties. The inquiry could examine if the company misappropriated the funds. It could also check if the funds were used for purposes other than their stated objectives. If Mr. Singh provides evidence of such non-compliance, the ROC/MCA might start an inspection. They could also investigate the company’s financial conduct. This investigation might result in the company’s name being struck off. It could also lead to the prosecution of its directors. This is distinct from the consumer’s right to a refund .

Conclusion: Distinguishing Corporate Governance from Consumer Protection (Fraudulent Company)

Mr. Singh’s case clearly highlights the vital distinction between corporate governance regulation and the sphere of consumer protection . The ROC acts as a watchdog for the Companies Act, not as a mediator for commercial service disputes. The complainant’s frustration that regulators should not allow a cheater to do business is morally valid. The legal mechanism for obtaining a refund differs from the process for revoking a company’s license .

For a truly effective resolution, the aggrieved consumer must change his focus. He should look from the administrative oversight body (ROC/MCA) to the judicial and protective forums. These forums are the Consumer Commission and, considering the allegations of fraud, the Economic Offenses Wing/Police . These bodies hold the mandate and power necessary. They can compel a refund for the service failure. They might also prosecute the perpetrators for criminal cheating.

I absolutely understand your frustration. You are angry because you feel let down by the ROC that licensed the company. You are correctly raising the critical point. This issue is not just a service dispute. It involves alleged fraud enabled by the corporate registration system.

Let’s directly address your concerns. I’ll outline the specialised authorities you must approach. This will help tackle both the ROC’s inaction and the company’s criminal conduct .

Why the ROC is Not Helping (And Where to Go Next)in case of Fraudulent Company

Your observation that the ROC closed the matter because it concerned “services provided by the company” is technically correct. However, it is frustratingly inadequate.

• ROC’s Mandate (Limited): The ROC’s main function is to ensure compliance with the Companies Act, 2013. This involves filing annual returns and maintaining records. They primarily address procedural corporate violations and not private contractual disputes such as poor service or non-refunds .
• The Problem: The ROC is failing in its secondary duty. It does not investigate and act when there are reports of a company running an allegedly fraudulent business. Section 206(4) of the Companies Act gives the ROC the power to inquire. This inquiry checks if a company runs its business for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose . This power is especially relevant when the ROC receives multiple reports. It becomes crucial when there are multiple complaints, such as yours, alleging this fraudulent intent.

The ROC Kanpur has closed your appeals. The company has completely ignored “near about half a dozen communications” from the ROC itself. You must escalate the matter immediately . You must approach authorities who focus purely on FRAUD and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION with the power to act.

1. Escalation for Criminal Fraud (Where to Get the Money Back)

The most effective way to address the severe allegations of “fraud” is to use special investigation bodies. These criminal bodies can compel strong action. These bodies can arrest individuals. They can seize company assets. They can initiate prosecution. This directly pressures the company to refund the money to avoid criminal charges (30 words).

Authority	Focus of Complaint	Your Objective
A. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)	Large-Scale Corporate Fraud. This agency, under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, investigates serious, complex, and cross-disciplinary financial crimes involving companies .	Request an Investigation into M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED. The company operates a business with fraudulent intent. It cheats multiple consumers and affects the public interest.
B. Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) / Police	Criminal Cheating and Misappropriation. This is the primary criminal investigative authority for white-collar crimes and financial misconduct .	File a First Information Report (FIR). It should be filed under Section 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and include other relevant sections. The FIR should state the non-refund of Rs. 1,26,000 and the company’s systematic deceit constitute criminal offenses .

Action You Should Take:

• File the FIR with the EOW/Police: This action is the quickest way to initiate a criminal investigation. It can lead to direct action against the company directors .
• Write to the SFIO/MCA: Send a detailed letter to the Director of the SFIO. Explain the history of your complaints. Note the company’s repeated non-response to the ROC . Highlight that the company is operating a fraudulent scheme. Urge the SFIO to take over the investigation.

2. Action Against the ROC (Escalation within MCA)

You are correct in your assessment that the ROC’s inaction appears to shield the company from appropriate consequences. You should directly address your escalation to the central Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) in New Delhi.

• Direct Complaint to the Ministry: Write a formal complaint to the Secretary. Provide detailed information for the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in New Delhi .
• Highlight the Failure: Specifically mention the ROC Kanpur’s repeated failure. They failed to invoke their powers under Section 206(4) of the Companies Act . Mention this failure occurred even after the ROC noted the company’s complete non-compliance with its own communications .
• Demand License Cancellation: Reiterate your demand for the cancellation or striking off of the company’s name. Request that the name be removed from the register under Section 248 . You must base this removal on the fraudulent nature of the company’s business. Cite evidence like ignoring official ROC notices.

3. The Money Recovery (The Role of the Consumer Forum) in case of Fraudulent Company

You may have stated this matter does not concern the Consumer Forum. However, this forum remains the simplest legal path for your financial recovery. The Consumer Forum has the power to directly order the company to pay you the Rs. 1,26,000 plus interest and compensation .

• Consumer Forum Power: A Consumer Commission order is a legally binding decree. Authorities can enforce it against the company’s assets and directors. This occurs if they fail to comply . They exist precisely to give consumers their money back for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices .
• Combining Strategies: You should pursue the Consumer Forum for financial recovery. At the same time, involve the EOW/SFIO for the criminal investigation. . The criminal pressure often proves effective in forcing the company to settle the civil claim for the refund.

The ROC cannot get you your money back. Only the EOW can achieve this through recovery of proceeds of crime. Alternatively, the Consumer Commission can do so through a decree.

Next Steps for Maximum Impact:

1. File an FIR (EOW/Police): Lodge a criminal complaint for cheating and fraud. This is done under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 420.
2. File the Case (Consumer Forum): File a complaint in the Mirzapur District Consumer Commission for the direct refund of Rs. 1,26,000 plus compensation .
3. Escalate to SFIO: Send a detailed complaint to the SFIO and the Secretary, MCA. Request an investigation into the company. Demand action against the ROC for its laxity.

Here is the office location information for M/s CLUB HIGH SKY (OPC) PRIVATE LIMITED based on the official records filed with the Registrar of Companies (RoC-Kanpur):

Company Office Location

Office Type	Address Details	City/State/Pin Code
Registered Office (as per MCA Records)	P. NO. 5, NEAR KALAYAN GIRI MANDIR, THAKUR GANJ, HARDOI ROAD, CHOWK,	Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India – 226003
Corporate Office (as per one consumer complaint site)	Saeed Complex Near India Family Mart, Opposite TVS Suzuki Arena, Thakur Ganj,	Lucknow, U.P. – 226003
Email ID	clubhighsky@gmail.com
CIN	U63030UP2021OPC143909

The official central hub for all company-related matters in India is the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).

Primary Web Links

• Official Website: www.mca.gov.in
• MCA Services Portal: View Company/LLP Master Data (This is where you search for company details and ROC registration status).
• Registrar of Companies (ROC) Offices: Contact Directory for ROCs (Lists all 25+ ROC offices across India).

---

Quick Service Links (Fraudulent Company)

If you are looking for specific Registrar of Companies (ROC) functions, these are the most common paths:

Service	Direct Link/Path
Search Company/LLP	Find CIN/LLPIN
Check Master Data	Master Data Search
E-Filing (V3 Portal)	MCA Sign In / Sign Up
Public Inspection	View Public Documents

---

Helpdesk & Support

The Ministry has a dedicated helpdesk for technical issues regarding the ROC portal:

• Toll-Free Number: 1800-202-3454
• Email for CRC (Registration): CRC.Escalation@mca.gov.in
• General Support: appl.helpdesk@mca.gov.in

Note: As of early 2026, most ROC services have transitioned to the MCA21 V3 Portal. This requires a registered “Business User” or “Registered User” account. These accounts are needed for many operations like filing forms or viewing detailed documents.