Sterlite case advt sures interview video
You may also like...
-
Ordered by Mahadevan J. Notice Ordered returnable by 2 weeks. To RBI google india. —AR REPORTER UNCATEGORIZED0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2021 CT. Murugappan —+Rbi and+Google India Digital Services Private Limited Having its registered office at 5th floor, DLF Centre, Block 124, Narindra Place, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001 …Respondents— BY SEKAR REPORTER · SEPTEMBER 12, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2021 CT. Murugappan No. 101/6, Padmanabha Nagar 5th Street, Adyar Chennai – 600 020 … Petitioner Vs. 1. The Union of India Represented by its Additional Secretary to Government Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs Room No. 129-B New Delhi – 110001(India) 2. Reserve Bank of India Consumer Education and Protection Department, Central Office, First Floor, Amar Building, Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 3. Securities and Exchange Board of India Represented by its Chairman Plot No.C4-A, ‘G’ Block Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra 4. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Represented by its Director 2 nd Floor, Paryavaran Bhavan, B3 Wing, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003 5. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Periyar EVR High Road Vepery, Chennai. 6. MMTC-PAMP Private Limited A13, Green Park Aurobindo Road New Delhi, 110 016 India 7. MMTC Core-1 Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area Lodhi Road New Delhi – 110003 8. Google India Digital Services Private Limited Having its registered office at 5th floor, DLF Centre, Block 124, Narindra Place, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001 …Respondents AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER I, CT. Murugappan, son of Chidambaram , Hindu, aged about 48 years, having office at No. 101/6, Padmanabha Nagar , 5th Street, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020, solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows: 1. I submit that I am the Petitioner herein and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case. I have not filed any other Writ Petition or other such Petitions before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court arising out of the same cause of action. I also submit that I am an advocate practicing before this Hon’ble Court for the past 20 years. 2. I submit that I opened a Google Pay Account using my mobile number +91 9841588660 with Google India Digital Services Private Limited sometime in late 2020 and have been using the same since then till date. 3. I submit that in the application provided by Google India Digital Services Private Limited, there is a facility to purchase gold from MMTC-PAMP Private Limited through Google India Digital Services Private Limited for various values on a fluctuating rate from time to time. The said facility also provides for the selling, delivery and gifting of the purchased gold from the digital “Gold Vault”. I have been purchasing gold from time to time since December, 2020. The accrued purchase of gold as of today stands at 6,439.70 milligram. 4. I state that on 03/07/2021 at around 5 P.M., I visited the MMTC showroom located at North Usman Road, T Nagar, Chennai and enquired about the delivery of the gold purchased by me. The staff at the said facility had informed me that since the purchase was digital I could exercise the delivery option available in the application and the gold will be delivered on payment of the delivery charges. 5. I further state that on 04/07/2021 at around midnight I tried to use the option of delivery from MMTC-PAMP Private Limited of you through Google India Digital Services Private Limited. However, to my utter shock and surprise when the option of delivery was exercised the delivery pincode was sought by the application and I entered the delivery pincode of T. Nagar, Chennai namely, 600 017 and on such entry a message “Try another. No delivery in this area currently” appeared with a toggle switch as “Next”. Immediately, I entered the pincode number 600 010, namely Kilpauk, Chennai where I am currently residing. On such entry, the failure notice appeared showing the exact same message as earlier. To my utter dismay I entered a new pincode number bearing 600 020, wherein I am having one of my offices. 6. Immediately thereafter, I sent a string of queries in the column “Send Feedback” from the Gmail account “jaimurugu38@gmail.com”. It is pertinent to state that I am not aware of to whom the said messages were sent, as it was sent through the “Send Feedback” option available in the application, on the understanding that it was being sent to Google India Digital Services Private Limited. While matters stood thus, I attempted the exercise again, resulting in the same outcome. 7. Immediately thereafter, on the said day, I purchased gold; the said purchase was allowed through the application. On 04/07/2021, I once again purchased gold at 5:02 P.M. (Indian Time) for a further sum of Rs. 50/-. I also made attempts to know about the possibility of delivery after the incident ending in the same result with the exact same message stated above. 8. I submit that it would be pertinent in this context to point out that if the “Sell” option is to be exercised the difference between the purchase and the selling price in the application is Paise 30/- less per milligram in comparison to the purchase price at any given point of time. 9. I submit that in the queries raised through the “Send Feedback” form, I had also raised the question if the whole exercise of the possibility of purchase and delivery of gold was a scheme or a scam and that if it were a scam whereby in the event of a possibility of failure to deliver, the gullible purchaser of the gold will be forced to sell the gold at a loss of Paise 30/- per milligram giving considerable profit of between 5-10%, either to Google India Digital Services Private Limited or MMTC-PAMP Private Limited among other queries. 10. I submit that it is but shocking to note that the queries raised by me are yet to be answered. I am aghast at the thought of the volume of fraud that is being played on gullible customers like him across India. 11. I submit that with a view to address this issue I issued a legal notice to Google India Digital Services Private Limited and MMTC -PAMP Private Limited, showing all of you except No.5 of you, as part of the notice through “Speed Post Acknowledgment Due” calling upon M/s Google India Digital Services Private Limited and/or MMTC-PAMP Private Limited to forthwith deliver the gold purchased by me together with compensation. 12. Meanwhile, I submit that on receipt of the Proof of Delivery by my Counsels, on 03.08.2021, I had made attempts to exercise the option of “Delivery”. There was communication, as if there was a problem with the Server. Thereafter, I could purchase gold for a sum of Rs.201/-. Immediately, I made attempts for “Delivery” of the gold. Options were shown, such as 1 Gram, 5 Grams etc., including the caption of “Add to Cart”, I added 6 Grams to cart, thereafter some making charges were added, my details and the address were sought. The details, including the address were fed, immediately the message “Something went wrong. Try Again” appeared at the bottom of the screen. Different addresses were also fed in, resulting in the same result. As the problem kept persisting, I had issued a representation on 07.08.2021, to the Respondents 1 to 5 seeking appropriate action against the 6th Respondent. However, I have not received any reply regarding the same. 13. I submit thereafter, vide email dated 09.08.2021, the 8th Respondent had sent a reply to the notice sent by my counsel refusing to accept any liability or responsibility in the said transaction. However, the 8th Respondent herein had also stated the following in their reply; “…Without prejudice to the above, we reached out to MMTC to enquire about the status of delivery to the zipcodes shared in your notice and have been informed that due to lockdown restrictions delivery to the said zipcodes were temporarily suspended. However, please note that the said zipcodes are now serviceable and we request you to kindly reach out to MMTC for further assistance.” 14. I submit thereafter, in complete contradiction to the above, on 19.08.2021, the 6th Respondent had issued another notice alleging that I have operated the application without the proper know-how either by entering the wrong pincode, or by clicking on the wrong tab and also that the pincodes that were entered by me were always serviceable and further warning me of legal action if I fail to withdraw the allegations of fraud. 15. I submit that even thereafter, as a matter of abundant caution, I have tried to place an order for delivery of gold and the same was not processed by the application. At this point, I undertook a general search on the internet to see if there are others who have faced the same issue with the 6th Respondent, and it was shocking to see the amount of people who have spoken about this issue. I submit that the 6th Respondent is not just tied up with the 8th Respondent but also with several other aggregators such as PayTM, PhonePe etc. and have a very wide outreach and user base. If their strategy is to entice customers into parting with valuable consideration on the promise of delivery of gold and subsequently, if the delivery option is made unexercisable, then this would amount to a clear case of fraud and as such considering the volume of citizens besides me who are likely to be affected by this malpractice, it becomes absolutely necessary that the other official Respondents take immediate cognizance of the matter and take appropriate action as against the 6th Respondent. Hence, left with no other effective and alternative remedy, I am moving this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 12, 2021
-
Justice v barathidasan gives interim relief to film producer
by Sekar Reporter · Published August 15, 2020
-
After a marathon hearing session which lasted for the entire court hours on Thursday, the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court constituted to answer the questions mentioned in the Sabarimala review reserved orders on the preliminary issue whether a reference is possible in a review petition. “Whether this Court can refer questions of law to a larger bench in a review petition?” – this was the preliminary issue considered by the Court. After the conclusion of arguments, the bench indicated that the hearing in the case is likely to commence from February 12.
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 6, 2020
