#ShaPaSaga: A few more questions for Sharad Pawar about a British Company

#ShaPaSaga: A few more questions for Sharad Pawar about a British Company
#ShaPaSaga: A few more questions for Sharad Pawar about a British Company

Following our article on a question for Sharad Pawar on ₹539000 crores ($81.53 billion) being raised in a company he was a Director of, Mr. Pawar moved swiftly to file a police complaint against the other two Directors, Ms. Shahanawaz Bharde and Mr. Sarvesh Gade, claiming that he had not authorised anyone in the firm to use it to name him as a Director in the company.

“I state that the accussed named have neither without my knowledge nor without my authority, falsely and fraudulently made the filings to the UK Companies House by falsely impersonation, nor taking on my identity.”

– Sharad Pawar

But this does not pass muster. Why, you ask? See Page 6 in set of Corporate filings for SGFX financials as shown below:

SGFX Financials


Page 6 is where Mr. Sharad Pawar says that he has Consented to Act and that his signature has been Authenticated. Authenticated means verified, either manually or electronically. According to our understanding of the British Law, as of 2010, Consented to Act means it is required to get a written consent from the concerned person. This law is being changed effective October 2015 but in 2010 a written consent was mandatory. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:
Corporate Law in Britain on Consented to Act
Similarly, on Page 11, his resignation letter as a Director is also Authenticated. A follow-up article in The Economic Times suggests that it could have been possible to incorporate a company in England without the consent of the owner. This is a bit difficult to swallow because the same argument can be used by anyone not wanting to associate themselves with an entity after the fact. Perhaps Mr. Pawar can answer these 3 questions:

  1. If you were unaware of your name being used in incorporating a company, then how did you resign from it 23 days later? How did you know that your name had been wrongly inserted in the incorporation documents?
  2. At the time of incorporation, you were allocated 0 shares, which means you have nothing to worry about. Then why complain to the Economic Police of Mumbai against the two Directors?
  3. Did you write to Companies House, UK requesting them to clean up their database about the “illegal use” of your name? At the time of writing this post, there is no update on Companies House website and Mr. Pawar is still shown as a Director for 23 days…


Note:
1. The conversion rate used in this article is 1 USD = 66.11 Rupees.
2. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.

Team PGurus

1 COMMENT

  1. `… have neither without my knowledge nor without my authority…’ – silly, they do not understand the implication of double negative!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here