A complaint filed against Amway

To                                                                                  Date: 22/3/2014

The Dy. Commissioner of Police,

CCS, Hyderabad City.

Respected Sir,

Sub:  Cognizable Offences of Promoting illegal Money Circulation Scheme, cheating and looting the gullible public with the promise of get quick rich scheme by the Amway India Enterprises and its promoters, members in Hyderabad City in the guise of sale of health and dietary supplement products – Request to inquire and take action against Amway India Enterprises, its promoters, members for indulging in cheating, promotion of illegal Money circulation scheme – Regarding.

*************

1.       I, M V Syam Sundar, Secretary, Corporate Frauds Watch Society, Hyderabad, humbly submit that Amway India Enterprises set up office near Yasoda Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad (which lies in the jurisdiction of the officer) and has been promoting illegal Money Circulation Scheme in the guise of sale of goods by enrollment of members in chain system with the inducement of get quick rich. The details of the Amway India Enterprises are as follows.

2.       The Enrollment scheme of the Amway:

          Amway is a company registered under the Companies Act. The scheme of Amway is 6-4-3 scheme. The first person has to sponsor 6 persons and these 6 persons have to sponsor 4 persons each totaling 24 persons and in turn these 24 persons have to sponsor/enroll 3 persons each totaling 72 persons. Thus these 103 (1+6+24+72) persons are called as one leg for income calculation purpose and this chain keeps on goes unchecked. The person should be enrolled by an already enrolled member so as to maintain chain. Initially, the entrance fee of the Amway is Rs.4,500/-. Now waived this entrance fee, but the new entrants have to purchase products worth Rs.4,500/- otherwise their membership will expire. After payment of some amount, an identity card and some products will be delivered by the company at the time of joining in the name of business kit. Joining a member into the scheme is treated as sale of products. The new person who joined in the scheme is called Amway Business Owner or ADA or ABO or downliner. The person who made the new member to join in the scheme under him is called upline member. Commissions are given not only on the event of personal efforts of their direct enrollment/sponsoring but also on the contingency relative or applicable to sponsoring of new members by their downline members. The promise of commission on the enrollment of new members will be as follows:

Sl. No.	No. of persons to be joined by self or downline members	Promise of commission in percentage	Business turn over credited in the members account based on his sponsoring activity of new members
1.	3 Persons	6%	Rs.13,500/- (3 persons xRs.4500/-)
2.	10 persons	9%	Rs.45,000/-
3.	20 persons	12%	Rs.90,000/-
4.	40 persons	15%	Rs.1,80,000/-
5.	70 persons	18%	Rs.3,35,000/-
6.	100 persons	21%	Rs.4,50,000/-

          Apart from this Amway induces that it will give Rs.50,925/- per month if any person sponsor or enroll 102 persons under his downline. The commissions are said to be distributed to all the members in the chain/network from last person to Amway in U.S.A. as commissions on group turnover.

3.       Amway company further has been awarding titles to its members based on their enrollment of new members into its scheme. There are 22 levels in the scheme of Amway namely 1) Silver, 2) Gold, 3) Platinum, 4) Ruby, 5) Founders Platinum, 6) Founders Ruby, 7) Sapphire, 8) Founders Sapphire, 9) Emerald, 10) Founder Emerald, 11) Diamond, 12) Founders Diamond, 13) Executive Diamond, 14) Founders Executive Diamond, 15) Double Diamond, 16) Founder’s Double diamond, 17) Triple Diamond, 18) Founder’s Triple Diamond, 19) Crown Diamond, 20) Founder’s Crown, 21) Crown Ambassador and 22) Founder’s Crown Ambassador.  The title holders will get huge and fabulous easy money in the form of group income which purely depend on the enrollment of new members into the scheme but not depend on the sale of products.

 4.      During seminar, the members of Amway/speakers have brainwashed to target wives of Govt. officials, middle class, retired persons, unemployed youth to get them into the scheme so as to spread network.

5.       The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. also held vide WP 20470/2006 that the scheme of Amway is nothing but illegal Money Circulation Scheme and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also upheld the same vide SLP No.13414/2007.  Moreover  the Government of A.P. has also issued a G.O. Vide G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 15/9/2008 restraining the Amway from issuing advertisements, still Amway has been issuing advertisements in contravention of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

6.       The Hon’ble High Court of AP in Speakasia case (CRLP 5626/2011) held that there is no need of any loss or misappropriation of funds to attract an offence under Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978. Mere informing a scheme, which covered under the money circulation scheme and enrolling members as subscribers, itself is an offence. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kuriachan Chacko case (2008(8) SCC 710) held that the scheme of enrolment of members leads to mathematical impossibility that amounts to cheating, as such the Amway has been cheating and promoting the illegal money circulation scheme in the guise of sale of products.

7.       I submit that so far Amway India Enterprises has cheated lakhs of people in Hyderabad and looted crores of rupees from the members of the Hyderabad by promoting illegal Money Circulation Scheme.

8.       Hence, I pray that the Dy. Commissioner of Police, CCS, Hyderabad may be pleased to initiate criminal action against Amway India Enterprises, its promoters and members for cheating, looting by extortion the hard earned money of gullible public by making false promise of get quick rich, by putting mental torture in the name of seminars and for promoting illegal money circulation scheme in the guise of sale of products by enrollment of members into its scheme.

Yours faithfully,

(M. V. Syam Sundar)

Copy to Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Hyderabad City.

Copy to Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City.

IRDA slaps Rs 1.77 cr fine on Reliance Life

Insurance regulator IRDA imposed a fine of Rs 1.77 crore on Reliance Life 
Insurance for violation of various norms including obtaining business from 
unlicensed entities.
"...the penalty of Rs 1.77 crore shall be remitted by the Life insurer by debiting 
shareholders’ account within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of this 
order...," IRDA said in an order.
It is observed that the Life Insurer has failed to monitor the activities of the 
corporate agent, it said, adding that this is considered as a serious lapse and 
the insurer is warned for the same.
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IIRDA) examined 47 charges leveled 
against the company including violation of advertisement and product distribution 
norms.
Instances are noticed where the business is sourced from unlicensed entities 
through Multi Level Marketing and was logged into the code of licensed entities, 
it said.
Business was procured by forged signatures or without signatures at the space 
specified in the agents confidential report column, it added.
Of the total charges, maximum penalty of Rs 65 lakh was imposed for soliciting 
insurance business from unlicensed entities.
IRDA said the business sourced through unlicensed entities was logged in various 
code numbers of Reliance Third Party Distribution Channel, which is one of the new
business verticals of the insurer.
"Hence, under powers vested in Section 102(b) of the Act, a penalty of Rs 60 lakh 
is levied on the life insurer," it said.
The regulator also slapped a fine of Rs 50 lakh for violation of marketing and 
publicity norms.
There was issue with regard to payments to referral entities under contests.
"It is observed that the insurer has made these payments to referral entities 
under contests in violation of provisions of Circular Ref. IRDA/Cir/004/2003 dated 
14/02/2003 and therefore a penalty of Rs 5 lakh is hereby imposed under Section 
102(b) of Insurance Act, 1938," it said.
Recently, IRDA asked SBI Life Insurance company to refund Rs 275.29 crore to the 
policy holders as the amount was collected from them in violation of norms.

Biting gigolo bait

Greed is so destructive that it destroys everything.  A number of people are losing their hard-earned money due to their greed to earn easy buck. Sizable number of young people appears to have bitten the bait to become gigolos and ‘call boys’ to earn easy money and lost their savings in the process in a Hyderabad-based racket. The ad invites the prospective young people to become members with the promise to earn Rs 50,000 every month by being escort to rich and aged women. The bait is hard to resist-earn money along with pleasure. The young men are asked to deposit Rs 10,000 in a bank account and wait for the call from the rich girl to accompany them. The call never comes and by the time they learnt that they are cheated, they are poorer by several thousands of rupees. They cannot approach the police since they know it is an illegal activity. Several hundreds if not thousands of people have lost their precious earnings in this racket. This is only a single instance. There are several such types of rackets in the classifieds going on every day. One ad offers employment and asks the applicant to deposit Rs 1500 in a bank account and if deposited that is the last of it. The poor people who pay the amount in the hope of securing a job are deprived of the small amount which is big enough for them. They are not in a position to approach the police and no police will swing into action to chase the culprits for that petty amount. Another ad seeks deposits without RBI permission promising to repay everyday certain amount for one hundred days. For instance, if Rs 1 lakh is deposited, the depositor is promised to repay Rs 1250 every day for 100 days. No need to say it is lost. Not only that the losers are asked to enroll their friends and relatives with the promise of handsome commission. Then apart from losing money, they lose relations with their friends and relatives, which is all the more dangerous. The police role in all these activities is questionable. They seldom receive complaints. Even if anyone approaches, the police shoo them away holding the victims’ greed responsible for the loss.

The primary duty of the police is prevention and detection of crime. There is neither prevention nor detection by the police in spite of the existence of a separate wing - Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in the Crime Investigation Department. The EOW is supposed to track the white collar offences. Pathetically, they do not act even if there are written complaints. The Tamil Nadu police had separated the Economic Offences Wing from the CBCID under the leadership of an IG. Andhra Pradesh police need to take a cue from the Tamil Nadu police in this respect. Some years back, there was this proposal to separate the Economic Offences Wing from CID and keep it as an independent identity. For reasons best known to the powers-that-be, the proposal was shelved. As long as there is no pro-active role on the part of the police, such white collar offences continue to thrive cheating the gullible with impunity. It is high time the Economic Offences Wing took initiative to prevent white collar offences.

CID arrests two directors of RMP on money circulation charge

Hyderabad: Crime Investigation Department (CID) officials arrested two directors 
of RMP Infotec Private Limited on charge of organising money circulation scheme in 
the guise of multi-level marketing of some products.
A laptop, hard disks and documents were seized from the company’s head office in
Chennai and customer care centre in Hyderabad, the CID Additional DGP, T Krishna 
Prasad, said. While Rajesh J. Chandhan and Dileep J. Chandhan were arrested, two 
other directors -Praveen J. Chandhan and Dhawal J. Chandhan- were absconding.
The quartet started the company headquartered at Chennai claiming that they were
distributors for some products. They enrolled persons purchasing products from 
them as distributors and offered money as incentive.
They claimed that RMP meant “Resource Money Power” and lured people to enrol with 
the company offering weekly payments ranging from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 1.3 lakh based 
on the number of members the buyers manage to get inducted in the company.
The company was indulging in money circulation scheme by luring the public, Mr. 
Prasad said. Eight cases were registered against the company following complaints 
from Guntur and Prakasam districts. The CID Additional DGP cautioned the public 
against trusting such companies.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/cid-arrests-two-directors-of-a- company-on-money-circulation-charge/article5801900.ece?homepage=true

Delhi resident lodges police complaint against Amway India

Direct marketing firm Amway India has been facing some tough times of late; and 
its troubles don't seem to be ending any time soon.
In the past year, the company and some of its key officials have been charged with 
financial irregularities. In May last year, its chairman and CEO William S 
Pinckney and two directors were arrested by Crime Branch officers for violating 
various provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 
1978.
And now, a Delhi resident has lodged a police complaint accusing Amway India of 
being involved in a scam allegedly worth over Rs.2000 crores.
According to the complainant, Kiran Pal, key officials of Amway India, including 
Pinckney and Chief Marketing Officer Sundeep Shah, allegedly adopted restrictive 
trade practices that resulted in misrepresentation, and the sale of inferior 
quality health, beauty and nutritional products.
In documents provided by Mr. Pal, he has claimed in his complaint that an Amway 
Enterprises Limited distributor lured him with the prospect of becoming an 
Independent Business Owner (IBO) and achieving complete financial independence.
According to the documents provided to the authorities, Pal has said his wife used 
one of Amway's eyeliner products, and thereafter, had to undergo costly medical 
treatment for burnt eye lids.
Based on Pal's complaint, the Civil Lines police station has issued a notice to 
the Amway India's offices in Sector 32, Gurgaon, seeking clarifications on the 
method of its operations, and details of agencies, if any, that verify Amway's 
products.
Amway India has not given a response or a statement with regard to this complaint, 
despite repeated attempts to contact them.

Who is Subrata Roy? 10-point cheat-sheet

Subrata Roy, the chief of the Sahara conglomerate, will remain in police custody till the next hearing in a case related to refunding investors, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. Roy was arrested on Friday after failing to appear at a Supreme Court hearing, which he says he missed to attend to his ailing mother.

10 things to know about Sahara chief Subrata Roy:

1. 1. Subrata Roy, the chairman and self-described "managing worker" of the unlisted Sahara conglomerate, started with capital of Rs. 2,000 in the late 1970s and eventually built his company into a giant that, according to its website, has assets currently of more than $11 billion or Rs. 68,000 crore.
2. 2. The company's full name is Sahara India Pariwar. Roy, 65, refers to himself as the guardian of the world's largest family, and espouses a philosophy of "collective materialism".
3. 3. The company says it helps small investors outside the banking system and that it has never defaulted on them.
4. 4. At the Sahara headquarters in Lucknow, staff greet visitors by putting their right hand to their chest and saying "Sahara Pranam."
5. 5. Roy, often photographed wearing a black necktie and vest over a white shirt, is based nearby at the showpiece Sahara Shaher, a sprawling gated complex of low white buildings and lawns where he lives and where the group holds an annual mass wedding for 101 couples who could otherwise not afford it.
6. 6. Roy is often described as a billionaire but he is not on the Forbes list of rich Indians. Sahara's website says no dividend has been paid for 34 years and no profit has been taken out of the company.
7. 7. Roy is not typically bracketed with a corporate elite led by families such as the Tatas, Birlas and Ambanis. "If you look at the orthodox business community, they have kept him at arm's length," said Ashok Prasad, a physician, lawyer and academic who taught overseas before returning to Gorakhpur, the city where Roy started out.
8. 8. Instead, Roy is associated with Bollywood celebrities and, like many tycoons, is seen as having good political connections.
9. 9. Sahara owns New York's landmark Plaza Hotel and London's iconic Grosvenor House hotel. The group sponsors the Indian hockey team and owns 42 per cent stake in the Formula One racing team, Force India. It became a household name in the country through its lead sponsorship of the national cricket team, which ended in December 2013.
10. 10. Critics, including activist groups, say Sahara's investment products are designed to evade oversight by financial regulators and that it lacks transparency on the source and use of its funds, selling products to investors who do not understand the risks and ploughing the proceeds into real estate projects.

Story first published on: March 04, 2014 12:04 (IST) Courtesy ND TV

Meet the man who showed Subrata Roy the way to jail – KM Abraham, upright IAS officer

If Subrata Roy, the recalcitrant head of the Sahara Group, today finds himself in police custody in Lucknow after the Supreme Court issued a non-bailable warrant in his name on 26 February, it is simply because he has tried to be too clever by half.

However, there was one bright and diligent officer in Sebi, the markets watchdog, who was cleverer than him. And it is due largely to the efforts of this one man, an upright man called KM Abraham, that Roy is now getting his comeuppance.

It is interesting that Abraham, a wholetime director of Sebi till July 2011, was not given an extension at Sebi, allegedly due to political pressure, but he exposed the Sahara Group’s two shadowy companies so thoroughly that neither the Securities Appellate Tribunal, nor the Supreme Court, could have found fault with it. Abraham is now a Additional Chief Secretary with the Kerala government in Thiruvananthapuram.

He is the man most responsible for bringing the Sahara boss to justice.

It was Abraham’s order against the Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (SIREC) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation (SHIC), dated 23 June 2011, that finally brought Roy to heel.

As we noted before, Abraham stumbled on the hanky-panky of these two companies almost by accident. It happened when the Group filed a Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) to raise equity for real estate company Sahara Prime City Ltd through an initial public offering (IPO). The DRHP disclosed details of two associate group companies that were raising huge amounts of money from the public through optionally fully convertible debentures without so much as a Sebi by-your-leave.

Sebi fired its first shot and asked the two companies to stop raising money through an order dated 24 November 2010, but, Sahara did it usual jig: use the courts to stymie the regulator. Sahara rushed to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which stayed Sebi's order but not its investigation. Sebi moved the Supreme Court, but the apex court too was not of much help. It merely directed the high court to expedite the case. The high court vacated its stay only on 7 April 2011, when it found that the Sahara group was not cooperating with Sebi as it had directed. Clearly, the group was merely into using courts for its own convenience, and not for actually accompanying with its orders – a pattern it has exhibited right to the end, when Roy did not turn up in the Supreme Court on 26 February despite being explicitly ordered to do so.

The Saharas and Roy clearly had nothing but indirect contempt for the law.

But back to Abraham. His monumental research on the Sahara group started bearing fruit from 29 April 2011, when the Allahabad High Court lost patience with Sahara and dismissed the group’s petition against Sebi with these caustic remarks: “A person, who comes to the court, is supposed to come with clean hands and bona fide intentions, and has to abide by the orders passed by the court, more so in a case where the parties' counsel agree for certain actions to be undertaken. If some assurance is given by any person to the court, as has been done in the present case, and the said assurance/understanding is not honoured, the court would not come to his rescue. The application is, therefore, rejected."

The matter then went back to the Supreme Court which asked Sebi to conduct its inquiry after giving company officials a fair hearing. The final Sebi order, which incorporates the details of those hearings, is a telling indictment of how close to the wind the group has been sailing. This is what Sebi found.

The Sahara Group primarily challenged Sebi's intrusion into the affairs of SIREC and SHIC saying that OFCDs were not under Sebi's jurisdiction since they were hybrid instruments -  neither shares nor debentures. Sebi demolished this argument easily since they were debentures that could be converted into shares. This contention was later upheld by the Securities Appellate Tribunal and the Supreme Court in 2012.

But while Sahara was arguing with Sebi, it claimed that the OFCDs were being privately placed with the Sahara Parivar and not the general public. When no public offer was involved, how could Sebi intervene?

Sebi kayoed this argument simply: when Sahara offices and agents were busy hawking these OFCDs, and when the two companies had garnered over six million investors, many of whom had no connection with the Sahara group, the offers were effectively not a private placement.

Sahara's clout in the corridors of power was visible when it produced opinions from the Law Ministry supporting its case. But the ministry had its own discordant views. While one Additional Solicitor General (ASG), Mohan Parasaran, leaned towards the Sahara Group's claim that the OFCDs were not a public issue, another ASG, Parag Tripathi, held otherwise. Section 67(3) of the Companies Act clearly says that where the number of investors exceeds 50, it cannot be termed a private placement. This contention was later upheld by the Supreme Court bench comprising KS Radhakrishnan and JS Khehar.

However, so far it was all about interpreting the law on hybrid instruments and private placement of shares. But Abraham’s real discovery was not just technical violations of the law, but real indicators of stark illegalities. These are his main findings.

Abraham showed how the Group, in contravention of Schedule II of the Companies Act, tried to deliberately exclude Sebi from vetting the DRHPs of the two companies. The Schedule specifies that while filing the DHRP, company directors have to file a declaration saying that they have complied with all provisions of the Companies Act and the Sebi guidelines, among other things. But the directors of the two Sahara companies excluded all references to Sebi while signing their declarations.

Said Abraham: “I also suspect that there has been a reprehensible attempt to conceal this applicability of the provisions of laws and the jurisdiction of Sebi on the issue itself, by making changes in the form and structure of the statutory declaration filed by the directors of the two companies."

Sebi's second major charge against Sahara was that it tried to bypass its strict laws on investor protection. In this context, it points out that SHIC's privately placed issue of OFCDs opened in 2008 and SIREC’s (the name of this company was changed later) had no closing date at all!

In fact, said Abraham, another Sahara company, Sahara India Commercial Corporation, had kept an issue for an overall size of Rs 17,250 crore open for 10 years!

How did these massive irregularities happen? Abraham obviously does not venture to answer who facilitated this, but he pointed out the dangers: “Such an alternative conduit of capital mobilisation bypassing much of the regulatory framework applicable to issue of capital could potentially subject our country's financial market and its investors to inordinate risks. Needless to say, the risk that such softer paths could be misused for massive money laundering is also dangerously real. Any dilution of the regulatory regime for the issue of capital by companies in India clearly is antithetical to our own objectives of investor protection.”

What Abraham suspected was that Sahara money could be laundered money, something the Supreme Court too alluded too – though that was beyond the scope of the court’s final judgment dated 31 August 2012. Despite Sahara denials of benami transactions, Judge JS Khehar, one of the two judges on the bench, observed: “Despite restraint, one is compelled to record that the whole affair seems to be doubtful, dubious and questionable. Money transactions are not expected to be casual, certainly not in the manner expressed by the two companies.” (Read the full judgment here).

In his own order, Abraham raised the following issues: “Can an (OFCD) issuer file an Information Memorandum, open the issue and keep the same open indefinitely? In fact, does it mean that an issuer need not even close the issue and keep it open perpetually?"

Apparently, for Sahara everything's possible.

Abraham’s investigation clearly pointed to a lack of corporate governance at Sahara companies – to say the least. The two companies, SIREC and SHIC - which were expecting to raise Rs 40,000 crore between them - did not even have a proper list of investors.

Said Abraham in his order: “The two companies... are without doubt, clearly in gross violation of the provisions of the laws applicable to public companies making offers of securities to the public. (They) seem to be unable to furnish even basic data on the identity of its (sic) own investors..".

To find out the names of its own investors, SIREC apparently needed the help of professional accounting firms. Asked Abraham: “If the identity of the investors and addresses themselves are not readily available with the firm - and the compilation and authentication of the data across the thousands of service centres will have to, as admitted by SIREC, require the support of professional accounting firms at this stage, then I wonder what real safeguards can possibly be there in place for investor protection?”

Abraham went as far as he could to dub the OFCD schemes of the two Sahara companies as a threat to investor safety, if not actually a Ponzi scheme. Says Abraham: “The learned counsel (the Sahara lawyer), at one point in the submissions before me, mentioned the fact that there are no investor complaints at all, from any investor in the OFCDs raised by the two companies. Going by the history of scams in financial markets across the globe, the number of investor complaints has never been a good measure or indicator of the risk to which the investors are exposed.

“Most major 'Ponzi' schemes in the financial markets, which have finally blown up in the face of millions of unsuspecting investors, have historically never been accompanied by a gradual build-up of investor complaints. But when financial catastrophes have indeed finally erupted, they do so with little warning and lead to major collapses in the financial markets with disastrous consequences to investors.”

Abraham’s final order pointed out that the two companies had not complied with even the basic rules for investor protection designed by Sebi (which, in retrospect, is explained by the fact that the companies were all along try to evade Sebi's jurisdiction).

Worse, the companies were planning to raise Rs 40,000 crore without having the basic financial strengths to do so. Said Abraham: “SIREC did not have any distributable profit for the financial year ending March 31, 2008. SIREC had a negative net worth at the time of the offer and the net worth of SHIC was around Rs 11 lakh.

“The subscribed capital of the two companies is very small in comparison to the liabilities on their balance sheets. The OFCDs raised are of the order of at least a few thousand crores of rupees, with the requirements for funds indicated at Rs 40,000 crore. To compound these concerns, all the OFCDs are unsecured - there is no charge on either the assets of the companies or on the revenue streams from the various projects undertaken by the two companies."

Abraham discovered that the Sahara group apparently intended to rotate money between one group company and another without reference to OFCD investors. The DRHPs of both companies stated that “the money not required immediately by the company may be parked/invested inter alia by way of circulating capital with partnership firms or joint ventures or in the fixed deposits of various banks.”

Observed Abraham: “This means that such funds mobilised beyond the pale of law, could be potentially diverted into various activities of the group companies, without any significant accountability or reporting requirements.”

The Sebi order also pointed out that cheques from investors were sought in the name of Sahara India, Subrata Roy's partnership firm, but OFCD certificates were issued in the name of Sahara Housing Investment Corporation. Money apparently moved from one pocket of Sahara to another without investors really getting to know.

The Supreme Court agreed with almost all the contentions of Abraham in his final order against the two Sahara companies. His work was so meticulous and unimpeachable that nobody could challenge their authenticity.

The optimistic note we can conclude on is this: when an upright man does a good and through job of investigation, it is not possible for anyone to overturn the truth. Satyameva Jayate.

R Jagannathan