Talk:Sahara India Pariwar/Archives/2013

sahara india

This page should be speedy deleted because... --211.181.123.131 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is being used to glorify the company which had been forced by Central Bank to repay deposits to depositors for gross irregularities, by Sebi to refund irregularly raised Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures, order which has been upheld by Supreme Court of India. So called 73000 crore group is not even listed on stock exchanges to avoid expose of large irregularies. What is source of this article. Where are verifiable parts. People trust Wiki and quote it as reliable source. Then how can Wiki allow itself to be party to the campaign misleading public at large. Article quotes Time Magazine without giving reference. In fact Time Magazine archives has no reference to this company not in 2004 and not since inception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girshnk (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC) REPLY=======1)the company which had been forced by Central Bank to repay deposits to depositors for gross irregularities, by Sebi to refund irregularly raised Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures, order which has been upheld by Supreme Court of India.THERE ARE SO MANY COMPANIES IN INDIA WHO DO DEFAULTS.THEY PAY PENALTY SO MANY TIMES TO EXCISE INCOMETAX EPT CUSTOMS ETC.THERE IS NO FRAUD INVOLVED HERE OLNY irregularities.There is no fraud.both 27000cr and 3cr subscribers are in the open since sebi first asked for details.2)So called 73000 crore group is not even listed on stock exchanges to avoid expose of large irregularies. What is source of this articleALL ASSETS OF SAHARA ARE REAL ASSATS(LAND AND BUILDINGS MOSTLY).YOU CAN VERIFY THEM VERY EASILY FROM STAMP OFFICES.NOTHING IS HIDDEN BOTH PURCHASED PRICE OF ALL THE LAND AND BUILDING AND MARKET VALUE AND THE FACT THAT ALL THOSE MENTIONED ASSETS AE STILL IN THE OF SAHARA CAN EASILY BE VERIFIED.TILL VERY RECENT SEBI GUIDELINES IT WAS NOT MANDATORY TO LIST ALL THE COMPANIES AND IT IS NOT THAT TO DO BUSINESS BEYOND A CERTAIN TURNOVER OR CAPITAL YOU HAVE TO LIST YOU SHARES.3)People trust Wiki and quote it as reliable source. Then how can Wiki allow itself to be party to the campaign misleading public at large. HAS THERE BEEN ANY DEFAULT IN PAYMENT BY SAHARA TO ANYONE.PEOPLE WHO INVEST IN SAHARA ARE SO POOR THAT THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER INVESTED IF THEY HAD A SINGLE QUESTION OR DOUBT.-----NOW-----TOMMOROW IF ANY LAW IS DIRECTED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DOES THAT WE WILL DECLARE THAT LEADER OR PARTY AS ENEMY AND REMOVE THE PAGE FROM WIKIPEDIA.SAHARA IS A TRUSTWORTH AND VERY OLD COMPANY.AS THERE IS NO PENALTY NO ARREST AS PER MY(OWN) OPINION THERE IS NO FRAUD as of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seentrain (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The issue still is about transparency and not about whether Sahara is fraud or not. Wiki should give unbiased information whether Abraham Lincoln or Adolf Hitler. This page is not doing that and till the time its transparent or unbiased it should not be there on Wiki. If this was unbiased and not propoganda then why talk about market cap for unlisted company, why group turnover is not from published accounts but from general interest news channel, why no mention of RBI order to repay money with interst, why no mention of Supreme Court Judgement. Further why the point of view mentioned by you does not appear on the main page for everybody to read rather than remaining on talk page. Once this page meets level of wiki's other pages it can be reinstated again.

---

REPLY---------1)SC JUDGEMENT WAS FOR JUST 2 OUT MANY COMPANIES.SO THE QUESTION OF MENTIONING OF ELEMENTS OF GROUP COMPANY DOES NOT ARISE.2)'propoganda'....NO WHERE IT SAYS TO INVEST OY BUY ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING IN THE COMPANY OR TRIES TO ASSURE ANYONE THAT IT IS A GOOD COMPANY.3)' why group turnover is not from published accounts but from general interest news channel'....SEE THE ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND PUBLISHED.BUT YOU CANT FIND THEM IN BSE OR SENSEX SITE BECAUSE THE COMPANY IS NOT LISTED.....IT IS COMPULSORY TO AUDIT A COMPANY HAVING A TURNOVER OF OVER 60LAKH IN INDIA AS PER IT ACT.TV CHANNEL ALSO REPORT THAT VERY AMOUNT WHICH IS SUBMITTED TO IT DEPT....NO FIGURE COMES FROM THIN AIR......YOU ARE SAYING ALL THIS NOT FROM YOUR CONCERN ABOUT ANY COMPANY OR ANY STAKEHOLDER BUT THERE IS OTHER HIDDEN REASON BEHIND IT WHICH IS ABOUT HATE TOWARDS A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY

File:Qshop-logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Qshop-logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

—Article mentions market capitalisation of group of 25.94 billion coming from financial statement of the group from their own website. There can be no market capitalization since group is not listed. Financial statement of the group contains this figure but there it refers to market value of assets which is not certified by the recognised valuer not audited. Surprising financial statement of the group does no have revenue data like sales, income, expenses or profits. Turnover figure of 73000 crores comes from NDTV report and not even financial statement which no longer exists. NDTV is general new channel. Wiki should not use unaudited figures for any business enterprise since people trust wiki and expects validated information from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girshnk (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

why delete

many soft drink making company got pestiside issues,a mobile company got huge penalty in usa and models got banned in europe.so many companies gets pollution penalties for foul plays etc etc.In case of Sahara it was found incorrect way of raising fund and so that fund has been ordered to be refunded with 4 years interest.No penalty is involved in here.does that mean all the companies who faces cases and loose case are bad companies.new laws are made and people contest in court some goes in favour others goes against.thats a very natural and a regular thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losw (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

However if the magnitude of charges is serious same should at least be mentioned in the article. After RBI asking for refund mentioned earlier, Supreme Court has also asked it to repay over 16000 crores immediately with interest which is between 1/4 to 1/5 of its reported assets which itself are questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girshnk (talk • contribs) 15:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section to the bottom of the article about the Supreme Court ruling.--Racklever (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Visit http://www.export.qld.gov.au/information_exporters/india_proj_sahara.shtml to verify .

As the company is not listed as a Public company, hence the valuation of the company mentioned in the article is doubtful. Further the article is written as an advertisement for the company and does not reflect NPoV.

(Truevalue (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

I have to agree this whole article is written like a promotion flyer for the company. A lot of biased talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.88.203 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree completely with the above two comments, I came to this website to find unbiased information, but it seems to be an advt of the company rather than good quality information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.51.236.2 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add to the criticism section

There is a lot of requestes below to include information on the companies unethical practices. As featured on the front page of Bloomberg.com, I would like to add my own (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/india-shadow-banker-fights-to-keep-empire-built-on-poor.html)[here].

I will start a critisism page, but I need help building it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theb4ssm4ncometh (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)