India RTI News

     Mumbai: HDFC Mutual fund failed to show SEBI and Trustee approval certificate to the investors of its top selling schemes . As per section 28 Of Mutual fund regulation HDFC AMC design the scheme and take approval from trustee and later send to SEBI for approval. To protect the interest of investors Under section 11 Of SEBI act 1992 SEBI give approval to mutual fund scheme . In many SEBI document SEBI confirmed that it approve the mutual fund scheme . In the SEBI scores complaint reply HDFC mutual fund is taking money from investors but not sharing trustee and SEBI approval copy with investors. It is cheating with investors and collecting money in the name of SEBI approval . HDFC did not PRINTED in any catalog or Brochure  in bold letter that this scheme in not approved by SEBI and Trustee.   HDFC AMC is making huge money in the name of approval from investors in the name of various charges and its share value is rising. HDFC mutual fund is unregulated ...

  Coforge Limited listed in BSE NSE without SEBI NOC in 2004. They failed to share SEBI NOC copy with investor reply in SCORES . They said Coforge acquired NIIT technologies and got Delhi High court order for merger of companies. High court did not given clean chit to list without regulatory compliance . Coforge did not checked SEBI NOC of NIIT and listed at BSE NSE . Many smart companies buy listed companies at any exchange and get listed at BSE and NSE with direct listing . A pharma Company Remedium life care  take over bicycle company ‘Roxy Exports Private Limited and listed at Ahmedabad exchange Listing without SEBI NOC is offence under section 15 HA of SEBI act 1992. and also fraud under IPC. COFORGE REPLY This is in reference to your complaint submitted via the SEBI SCORES portal regarding the listing of Coforge Limited. We would like to clarify that Coforge Limited (formerly known as NIIT Technologies Limited) got listed on both the Stock Exchanges( NSE and BSE) in...

  Cigniti cum Coforge Compliance officer in the SCORES reply confirmed that they Listed in Hyderabad Stock exchange in 2005 without SEBI NOC and later at NSE -BSE as direct listing in 2012 as per reply . It is fraud with investors . Any time FIR can be filed for this SEBI act violation with section 15 HA action like Sahara case. It is interest free money without SEBI permission as per Company act 1956. Hyderabad exchange officials took bribe from companies and list their shares without SEBI compliance . As per SEBI 1992 circular all exchanges has to follow SEBI compliance before listing the shares ie SEBI NOC. By foul  play Cigniti listed at Hyderabad exchange and later listed at BSE and NSE by direct listing guidelines . Promoters sold 45 percent of their shares to public and got huge fund for business promotion. It is interest free money without SEBI NOC . 

  ACB JUDGE SHASHIKALA S NAGUR MUMBAI SESSION WANT TO ARGUE MATTER WITHOUT CASE NUMBER. WHY JUDGE GIVING SPECIAL TREATMENT TO THIS CASE? ALL THE CASES ARE ARGUING DURING FILING STAGE OR WITHOUT CAUSELIST LISTING? Mumbai: The complainant filed three contempt petitions against ACB MUMBAI officers for not registering Zero FIR against Thane District Judge SB Agarwal, ADJ Amit Shete and JMFC Smt GS Bora for doing corruption in judicial process under section 7&13 of PC ACT 1992. The ACB officers disobeyed SC Lalita Kumari directions and contempt filed as per para 3 of the Lalita Kumari judgment.  The registry raised maintainability question to petitioner .Petitioner referred SC judgment that registry cannot decide maintainability of petition. As per the ACB judge Shashikala verbal direction registry is not numbering contempt petition . Clerks are afraid to number petition as ACB officers are having well wishers in session court. They are insisting petitioner to argue with judge ...

* Police officers who betray their public duty to protect criminals or frame innocent persons will no longer enjoy impunity—they will face imprisonment and prosecution.*  Supreme Court’s recent Landmark Judgment — K.P. Tamilmaran v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 958 — *Directly Applicable to the Cases of Disha Salian and Sushant Singh Rajput*: The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in K.P. Tamilmaran v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 958, stands as a stern constitutional warning to all corrupt and dishonest police officers who abuse their official position to shield powerful accused persons and falsely implicate innocent citizens.  *In this case, the Court awarded life imprisonment to senior police officials who:*  *Deliberately delayed the registration of an FIR in a murder case for nine days, and*  *Falsely implicated the father of the deceased in serious criminal offences, thereby attempting to suppress the truth and derail justice.*  The Hon’ble Court condemned such co...

  हुंडई का आईपीओ घोटाला सामने आया , बिना सेबी के अनुमति के आईपीओ बेच डाला और निवेशकों को २८००० Cr  कर का चूना लगाया ....  Mumbai:The Hyundai Motors India Limited IPO Listed without SEBI Permission and cheated investors with Rs 27870 Cr .In the scores reply Compliance officer Pradeep Chug claimed the SEBI NOC but did not shared the copy . They have not cleared all the objection raised by SEBI in observation and floated IPO with the corrupt practice with NSE and BSE on 22 Oct 2024 . SEBI in the RTI reply said that they have not issued any permission to the hyundai motor India IPO. The Hyundai by the way of fraud received interest free Rs 27870 Cr for expansion. It is fraud with Investors and SEBI failed to protect the investors Under section 11 of SEBI act 1992. SEBI Officers are doing corruption with exchanges without following rule of law. As per law and SEBI circulars all the compliance is mandatory but agent bypass the procedure by corruption in SEBI corporate Finance D...