FIR against Sakshi Dhoni in multi-crore fraud case

October 11, 2016

Sakshi Dhoni, wife of India's limited overs cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni, has been named in a multi-crore fraud case and an FIR has been filed against her.

dhoni-shakshi2

The case, under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was registered against Sakshi and three others on the complaint of Dennis Arora, a resident of Gurugram's Nirvana Country township, according to a media report.

Sakshi, Arun Pandey, Shubhawati Pandey and Pratima Pandey are co-directors in Rhiti MSD Almode Private Limited, which has shares in Sportsfit World Private Limited, a gym and fitness centre. Sportsfit World, on the other hand, is co-directed by Dennis, and his father Vikas Arora owned 39 percent shares in the company, the report continues.

The directors of Rhiti MSD Almode Private Limited had decided to buy Vikas Arora's shares from him.

Dennis alleged that while the agreement was for approximately Rs 11 crore, the directors of Rhiti MSD Almode Private Limited have paid only Rs 2.25 crore so far, and missed the 31 March deadline for clearing the dues. A complaint has been filed against Sakshi and her co-directors at the Sushant Lok police station in Gurugram, according to the report.

Arun Pandey, one of the directors of Rhiti MSD Almode Private Limited, however, said that they had paid more than the shares Vikas Arora had transferred.

Pandey added that Sakshi had left the company almost a year ago and the case could not be registered against her. Moreover, as the case is pending for arbitration after the Delhi High Court's order, no FIR should have been registered.

Sakshi has so far not reacted to the allegations. Police are investigating the matter and at the moment there is no confirmation of Sakshi's involvement in the case.

Comments

Satyameva jayate
 - 
Thursday, 13 Oct 2016

Fools watch this games.....as players are God's for them.....wasting time and work.....while players make crores now their family members too.....poor public.....cricket marlaas...

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 23,2020

Bengaluru, Jun 23: Police have nabbed two foreign nationals who were drawing money from ATMs of various banks by using fake ATM cards after collecting details of the card including code while customers used to withdraw money.

Police on Tuesday said that the arrested were identified as Felix Kisiibo (25), Present address Kogilu, Yelahanka, Bengaluru Native address BUGOBERO Village, Khabutoola sub-county, Manafwa District, Uganda and Khairun Abbdulla (32), Present address Kogilu, Yelahanka, Bengaluru Native address House Uzini Zanzibar, Mkele urban, Tanzania.

The duo by inserting Skirmish machine into ATM used to collect details of ATM cardholders, balance and code and then by using fake ATM cards used to withdraw the money without the knowledge of customers.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 5,2020

Chennai, Feb 5: In order to ensure housing for all, the Madras High Court has proposed ban on non-resident Indians from purchasing houses in India, prohibit speculative sale, and impose 100 per cent extra stamp duty on purchase of second house.

The court on its own impleaded the Union housing and finance ministries as party respondents.

It has directed them to answer a series of questions including as to how many families have basic amenity of housing in India as well as in Tamil Nadu, population and housing ratio in the country and in the state, when 'Housing for All' mission of the central government would be achieved.

"Why the government does not consider imposing such restrictions to control escalation of house prices and to provide a house to every family in the country, a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose wondered.

Directing the authorities to inform as to whether the central and state have got special schemes to provide housing for the marginalized and economically weaker sections including SC/ST communities, the bench has also sought the details of the number of families that possess more than one house.

"Why the governments do not restrict families/individuals from purchasing/possessing more than one housing unit/flat/plot till "Housing for all" is achieved?

Why not the government charge 100 per cent more or extra stamp duty to discourage buying more than one house by a family while purchasing second house?

Why not the government conditionally allow the families to purchase more than one house provided the said family pays 100 per cent extra statutory dues like property tax, electricity charges, water and sewerage charges on the second property?" the bench said.

This apart, the court also wanted the authorities to know as to why it should not prohibit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India to bring down the cost of housing.

Justifying its directions, the court said "Lakhs and lakhs of people are living on platforms, roads, and cement pipes, slums, under the trees and on banks of water bodies without proper shelter and basic amenities and safety."

It is true that the Centre had taken a policy decision to provide housing unit to every family.

It should be achieved at the earliest, the court said, adding it could become fruitful when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The court passed the order while hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against acquisition of about 369 acres of private land in Thudiyalur and Vellakinar areas of Coimbatore for a housing scheme.

Comments

Suresh SS
 - 
Wednesday, 5 Feb 2020

We believed that only Indian Govt. ministers, MP and MLAs has this disease, now it is spreading everywhere even Indian High courts. it is certainly very harmful virus  

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 12,2020

New Delhi, Feb 12: Cooking gas LPG price on Wednesday was hiked by a steep Rs 144.5 per cylinder due to spurt in benchmark global rates of the fuel.

But to insulate domestic users, the government almost doubled the subsidy it provides on the fuel to keep per cylinder outgo almost unchanged.

LPG price was increased to Rs 858.50 per 14.2 kg cylinder from Rs 714 previously, according to a price notification of state-owned oil firms.

This is the steepest hike in rates since January 2014 when prices had gone up by Rs 220 per cylinder to Rs 1,241.

Domestic LPG users, who are entitled to buy 12 bottles of 14.2-kg each at subsidised rates in a year, will get more subsidy.

The government subsidy payout to domestic users has been increased from Rs 153.86 per cylinder to Rs 291.48, industry officials said.

For Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) beneficiaries, the subsidy has increased from Rs 174.86 to Rs 312.48 per cylinder.

After accounting for the subsidy that is paid directly into the bank accounts of LPG users, a 14.2-kg cylinder would cost Rs 567.02 for domestic users and Rs 546.02 for PMUY users.

The government gave out 8 crore free LPG connections to poor women under PMUY to increase coverage of environment-friendly fuel in kitchens.

Normally, LPG rates are revised on 1st of every month but this time it took almost two weeks for the revision to take place - a phenomenon which industry officials said was due to approvals needed for such a big jump in subsidy outgo.

Others said the decision to defer the increase could have been because of assembly elections in Delhi. Delhi voted on February 8.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.