Tuesday 13 October 2009

"Amway's vicious circle is evident"

These are two interesting paragraphs in the High Court judgment which nailed the Amway.
35. From the whole analysis of the scheme and the way in which it is structured it is quite apparent that once a person gets into this scheme he will find it difficult to come out of the web and it becomes a vicious circle for him. In any event the petitioners have not specifically denied the turnover they are achieving and the income they are earning towards the initial enrollment of the distributors, the renewal subscription fee and the minimum sales being achieved by the distributors as alleged in the counter affidavit. By no means can it be said that the money which the first petitioner is earning is not the quick/easy money. By promising payment of commission on the business turned out by the down-line members sponsored either directly or indirectly by the up-line members (which constitutes an event or contingency relative to enrollment of members), the first petitioner is earning quick/easy money from its distributors, apart from ensuring its distributor earn quick/easy money. Thus the two ingredients are satisfied in the case of promoter too. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the scheme run by the petitioners squarely attracts the definition of “Money Circulation Scheme” as provided in Section 2(c) of the Act.
36. We may now deal with the petitioners’ plea that the Government of India has not cancelled the scheme and, therefore, the respondents cannot prosecute them. From the record produced by the learned Advocate General and the Assistant Solicitor General, we find that none of the brochures as referred to and discussed above were placed before the Government of India. It is also clear from the record that the details of the scheme were not discussed by the committee which recommended for grant of approval to the scheme of the petitioners. As already noted above, in his letter dated 29.3.2003, the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, had clarified that the pyramid structured marketing scheme fall within the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the mere fact that the approval accorded by the Government of India has not been cancelled or withdrawn is not sufficient to stultify the investigation of the case registered against the petitioners. At any rate, whether the Government of India has taken any action or not or what view it takes on the schemes run by the 1st petitioner have no relevance in the adjudication of the issues raised by the petitioners in the cases before us.

13 comments:

dtytrivedi said...

again after that supreme court has given its judgement

http://www.thehindu.com/2007/08/15/stories/2007081555171900.htm
read this clearly.....

http://www.indiaprwire.com/businessnews/20070814/23903.htm

this is the latest happening in the case, why are u showing the events in the past.....

Tex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Owner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tex said...

Shyam,

It appears you and Brear aren't interested in anything approaching the truth. Why don't you post the link where you chose those 2 paragraphs from? Let me be clear - YOU ARE BOTH LIARS!!!

Shyam Sundar said...

http://www.skmastanvali.com/site/jud/alt.doc
Tex, here is the link to read the full text, otherwise, buy a book with the citation of
2007 (4) ALT 808(D.B.) of Andhra Law Times and read, nay, study it. If you are not satisfied give me your email ID I shall send you the full text. Be honest in whatever you do. Why do you think everyone is a liar. Probably you are a liar and that is why think everyone is a liar.

Shyam Sundar said...

http://www.skmastanvali.com/site/jud/alt.doc
Tex, here is the link to read the full text, otherwise, buy a book with the citation of
2007 (4) ALT 808(D.B.) of Andhra Law Times and read, nay, study it. If you are not satisfied give me your email ID I shall send you the full text. Be honest in whatever you do. Why do you think everyone is a liar. Probably you are a liar and that is why think everyone is a liar.

Tex said...

I don't think you or Brear are liars, just STUPID. LOL

You can email me at hawaiianibo@yahoo.com, let me know when you do it, as I don't check the box very often. If you have the "guts", we can also talk on the phone, as I've suggested before.

Tex said...

Here's the conclusion, they tossed 2 of the writ petitions and will look at the others later (I assume this is part of the court date next month, right?):

52. In the result, the two writ petitions i.e., Writ Petition Nos.20470 and 20471 of 2006 are dismissed.

53. As regards Writ Petition Nos. 24799 of 2000, 7515 of 2003, 22914, 22915, 22916, 22913, 21128, 20616, 23737, 26149 of 2006, 3202, 2462, 9397 and 9398 of 2007, which were listed for hearing along with these petitions, it is appropriate to observe that the Court did not have the benefit of the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, therefore, appropriate that all these petitions be listed for hearing on 24.8.2007.

dtytrivedi said...

dear shyam, why don't u understand that supreme high court gave judgement regarding amway on 12th of August why are not considering that.

The high court case regarding amway was on 19-07-2007

if u don't find any link than plz let me know i will show u the link again

dtytrivedi said...

here is want i am highlighting before u say again that i am nit wit

"In what could undermine the flourishing business in India of one of the world's largest direct selling companies Amway Corp of USA, the Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed its plea to stop an ongoing probe by the Andhra Pradesh Police into the legality of its business scheme"

Is this statment by amway

Shyam Sundar said...

Trivedi, the paragraph you are quoting speaks itself that the Supreme Court dismissed the plea filed Amway India. Amway India appealed to the Supreme Court to stop police investigation into the legality of its business scheme and the Supreme Court dismissed Amway India's petition. Can't you understand such a simple English sentence. That is what I have posted as the Supreme Court order. Then what shall I call you now?

dtytrivedi said...

dtytrivedi i suppose

Tex said...

The bottom line is it ain't over yet. We know you feel Amway should be found guilty, but it hasn't happened yet, and may not happen.