The debatable point is, whether it is East or West, can a criminal commit the crime again and again when a criminal case is pending against him. That is what is happening in India. A criminal case was filed against Amway India for indulging in illegal money circulation scheme and cheating a large number of people. Still, the criminal company is still doing the same cheating again and again in the same business model which was held illegal by the highest court in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Who is responsible for this state of affairs - the corrupt bureaucracy or the corrupt police officers or the snail-paced judicial process?
For instance, the Amway India has preferred to file an appeal by way of a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court when the Principal Secretary (Home) issued Government Order No. 178 dated 15-09-2008 restraining Amway India from advertising its business model in any media. The Principal Secretary submitted a hard-hitting affidavit in the High Court. Then the Amway India developed cold-feet and bribed wherever necessary to bury its own writ petition preventing it from appearing on the Bench.
Later, in 2009, the Corporate Frauds Watch filed a writ of Mandamus in the Andhra Pradesh High Court to direct the police officials to act upon the Government Order No. 178. Amway India could not help when it received the show-cause notice from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the same writ of Mandamus. It started its own gameplan to bury the writ preventing it from appearing on the Bench. The number of the writ petition went down to 140 from the earlier 20s or 30s.
Suddenly, the earlier writ petition of 2008 started appearing on the Bench. Apparently, the Amway India's gameplan was to get the Government Order quashed. Not to be outwitted, the Corporate Frauds Watch filed an implead petition in the writ petition of 2008. Then the Bench which is hearing the writ petition, preferred to transfer it to a larger Bench without hearing the version of the Corporate Frauds Watch.
It may look coincidental. But any rational person would not believe in coincidents.
3 comments:
if u look around, amway hasn't shown its business model even in any other countries in any sort of media formats.
not only this, according to information i have, amway only offers sales and marketing plan in indian website
dtytrivedi,
"Business model" was a poor choice of words in the original post. I think there has been some restrictions on ADVERTISING in parts of India, I don't know if those restrictions are still in place.
Regarding the original post, I think Shyam is rather clueless how the judicial system works in his own country.
ibofb,
Since you are developing a habit of ignoring my posts that are a couple of threads old (not your fault for the new, lame thread part), here's the response from the prior thread:
LIAR. You stated that nobody has ever provided you a single example, even though you have asked numerous times for a single example. LIAR.
I don't feel sorry for Anderson, he's a (former) LCK.
It doesn't matter if you agree whether Amway can arbitrate former IBOs, it's in the current contract. Unless/until someone takes Amway to court (good luck, they will delay it until the plaintiff is literally dead!), it stands. The best current court case is the Pokorny, which is awaiting a court date, with no near-term expectations, according to a lawyer involved in the case.
Again, you inferred the ORIGINAL judge said it didn't matter what actions Amway took before/during the trial, by saying, "Tex - The appeals judge was referring to the original judges findings." Of course they were referring to the original judge's findings, that's what appeals judges do when they are reviewing a lower court case. Duh! The FACT is there is no language that remotely infers this concept in the original judge's decision, and it is apparent the appeals court was in error on this point. THAT is my point.
Also, the appeal judges' main responsibility was to determine whether the original judgment should stand or not, so whatever editorial comments they made are insignificant.
Post a Comment