Many Mmb operators engaged over this to trap retailers.
💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥
LETS START FROM PROMOTER SHAREHOLDING WHICH IS 46% AND 90 % OF WHICH
VISESH HAD PAID DIVDEND IN 2006 WHEN STOCK PRICE WAS 55.
COMPANY HAS ISSUED BONUS IN 2013 , I DON’T THINK HOW A LOSS MAKING
COMPANY ISSUED BONUS AND WHY AND ALREADY THEIR COST OF CAPITAL IS TOO
ONLY THOSE COMPANY SHOULD GIVE BONUS WHICH ARE PROFITABLE AND THEY CAN
FURTER INCREASE EPS.
COMPANY IS IN SERVICE SECTOR BUT THER COST OF GOODS SOLD IS ALMOST
EQUAL TO SALES SO
IT SHOWS THAT HOW POOR MANAGEMENT VISESH HAVE.
WHEN COMPANY HAD SALES OF 110CR ITS EMPLOYEE COST WAS 3.61CR
IN 2011 WHEN SALES BECAME 176 CR ITS EMPLOYEE COST WAS 1.02CR.
WHEN SALES WAS 154 CR ITS EMLOYEE COST WAS 2.16 CR.
WHEN SALES WAS 175 CR IN 2014 ITS EMPLOYEE COST WAS 2.86 CR.
IN 2016 WHEN SALES ARE 261 CR ITS EMPLOYEE COST IS 1.83 CR ONLY.
IN 2016 COMPANY HAS EARNED 6 CR OTHER INCOME WHICH IS UNKNOWN.
LAST 3 YEARS COMPANY IS NOT PAYING TAXES.
SINCE 2011 TO 2016 THEY HAVE RAISED HUGE QTY OF SHARES FROM THE MARKET
BUT THE SALES LEVEL IS SAME AS WHAT WAS EARLIER .SO HOW THE MANAGEMENT
USED THOSE CAPITAL AND WHERE?
SO I TELL THEY RAISED MONEY FROM MARKET AND USED IN INVESTMENT WHICH IS 66 CR.
IF YOU CONSIDER INVENTORY LEVEL IN LAST 3 YEARS AND CASH BALANCE ITS
SAME FROM 2014 TO 2016.
COMPANY FIXED ASSEST HAS REDUCED FROM RS 298 CR TO RS 90CR EVEN IF
MANAGEMENT HAS ISSUED CAPITAL SO WHY FIXED ASSEST REDUCED DRASTICALLY.
COMPANY HAS 61 CR CONTINGENT LIABILITIES WHICH IS EQUAL TO ITS FIXED ASSEST.
COMPANY HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANNUAL RETURN AND PAID FEES ON INCREASED
AUTHORISED SHARE CAPITAL.
i. Company had increased its authorised capital during the Financial
Year 2010-11 to 2012-13, however, due to technical issues necessary
forms along with the fees w.r.t. increase in Authorised Capital could
not be filed and paid. Meanwhile the schedule of fees was increased as
per the companies act, 2013. However, the authorised capital was
increased prior to the applicability of companies act, 2013.
company has filed a Writ Petition bearing No. WP(C) 5199 of 2015 before
the Hon”ble High Court of Delhi challenging the applicability of
provisions prescribed under Para 3 of Table B under Registration of
Offices and Fees Rules 2014. Due to this reason Annual return could not
be filed. Hence, Directors of company are not disqualified for
re-appointment in this company and are eligible for appointment in any
other company as a Director in terms of Section 164(2) of the Act.(From annual reports)
⛰️ ⛰️ ⛰️ ⛰️ ⛰️ ⛰️ ⛰️ ⛰️ ⛰️ ⛰️ ⛰️ ⛰️
ii. Suspension of Sign domains Operations by ICANN: THE Company is one
of the accredited Registrars, however due to certain inadvertent
non-compliance of the Accreditation Agreement executed by the Company,
which could not be cured within the stipulated time; hence ICANN had
suspended the Domain Name Registration for a period of three months.
The non-compliance was cured and the suspension has been revoked and
THE company had again started the Domain Name Registration business.
The observations made in the Auditors” Report and Secretarial Auditor”
report are self – explanatory and do not call for further comments.
Report of the Secretarial Auditor is given as an Annexure-II which
forms part of this report, however, as regards qualifications made by
the Auditors” in their report THE directors state as under:
💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥 💥
1. The funds raised by the Company from GDR issue during F.Y. 2007-08
were kept in fixed deposit account with Banco Efisa, Lisbon, Portugal,
as the said amount was to be deployed in terms of INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM of the GDR issue. During the F.Y. 2008-09, Banco Efisa, the
Bank in Portugal, wrongly debited an amount of USD 8,883,210.75 out of
the balance lying in the Company”s Account with the Bank. The Company
has denied and disputed this debit and had initiated legal action under
criminal jurisprudence of Portuguese Law. During the criminal
investigation, several new facts/documents have come to our knowledge
and based on the evaluation of new facts/documents by Barristers,
Senior Advocates and investigation carried out of in India, London and
Portugal; THE Company has initiated a strong civil action for recovery
of USD 8,883,210.75, alongwith interest, against Banco Efisa and its
Holding Company, wherein our Portuguese advocates confirm that the
chances of recovery are very high. The suit filed by THE company
before Portuguese courts is presently pending adjudication.
DISCLAIMER :The blog aim to share important information to protect investors.