POSTED ON: 14th August, 2021
LAST UPDATED ON: 15th August, 2021
Being irritated by the repetitive mails and SMSs from Team DHFL for confirmation of our Bank details, we are regularly sending this letter by using different posters (all posters are available at: DIGITAL POSTCARD CAMPAIGN: #Save_DHFL_FD_NCD_Holders⤡; also see our Instagram handle, the posters are available there as well: https://www.instagram.com/oiabm2021/ ) and different hyperlinks of our blog posts. If you wish, you may do the same (by copy-pasting the following body of the letter) and send it to the following email IDs, if possible, on a daily basis: fmo@nic.in, appointment.fm@gov.in, nsitharaman@gmail.com, Response@dhfl.com, governor@rbi.org.in, dhflarforfd@gmail.com, DHFLAdministrator@dhfl.com, rbi.administrator@dhfl.com, charudesai@gmail.com, ARforFD@dhfl.com, cgm1.ccg@sbi.co.in
SUB: REFRAIN FROM MAKING ANY DISBURSEMENT TO THE DHFL FD HOLDERS DUE TO PENDING ADJUDICATION (SUB JUDICE)
Dear Team DHFL,
Kindly stand informed that the payment received, if any, in pursuance of the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT vide order dated 07.06.2021, shall be received in protest and treated as part payment of the full refund of the deposit of FD amount, as per the statutory guarantee under RBI and NHB Acts. Receipt of the payment shall not be considered as consent to the Resolution Plan. It is also brought to your notice that there are several cases before various forums, including the NCLAT, several High Courts and the Supreme Court, which are pending adjudication (sub judice).
Further, as an aggrieved investor, I reserve my right to challenge the Resolution Plan and the payment made therein before any Forum.
Therefore, you are requested to refrain from taking any action towards disbursement or alienation of assets of the DHFL, a profitable ongoing company, till the matter is finally decided. WE DO NOT APPROVE ANY MANIPULATED, PREDETERMINED DECISION, EVEN IF IT IS SANCTIFIED BY THE SHEER TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY IN THE CONTEXT OF CRONY CAPITALISM AT THE LOWER TRIBUNAL.
However, in democracy, numbers do matter. In response to such proposition, we wish to cite Socrates’ dialogue with Crito, when Socrates was sentenced to death by the virtue of the so-called majority’s decision:
Socrates: But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering, will think of these things truly as they happened.
Crito. But do you see, Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion.
Socrates: I only wish, Crito, that they could; for then they could also do the greatest good, and that would be well. But the truth is, that they can do neither good nor evil: they cannot make a man wise or make him foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance.
However, Socrates got justice 2,400 years after his death by consuming hemlock. Justice delayed, justice denied?
Not guilty: Socrates narrowly acquitted 2,400 years after death VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 26th May, 2012 ©RT Question More)
In this regard, we wish to cite the NCLT order on the DHFL-case ⤡ [IA 2431 of 2020 in CP (IB) 4258/MB/C-II/2019 Under Section 60 (5), 227 (2), 239 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016] points 16-19 and 84-89.
As pointed in point 16 a scathing remark that “…it (The COC) has not considered the same (Mr. Kapil Wadhawan’s Resolution Proposal) on its merits or with its commercial wisdom.” One can understand the position of the DHFL-COC being the pet of the RBI and the Government. However, what is puzzling is that Catalyst Trusteeship Limited holds 52.13% (cf. point 69 of the NCLT Order, as per the DHFL-COC’s RP meetings) of the total voting power in the COC though FD and NCD holders hold more than 65% according to the NCLT Order (cf. Point 87: “…the proposal is not made available to FD, NCD holders who constitute more than 65% of vote share of members of COC”).
Why did you not argue with reference to this NCLT first order? Why did you so hurriedly ignore this order altogether without offering any suitable counter-argument? We, the DHFL Victims, think that it is a gross violation of the trajectory in the course of justice. It is an instance of severe audacity on your part for not answering the NCLT first-order within the prescribed and stipulated ten-days time-span and impulsively (alas! weakness!) moving to the NCLAT with the aid of Piramal. Are you scared to answer all those pertinent questions as contained in the NCLT first order?
Your cat is already out of the bag, no use of hiding it now!!
See the catastrophic state of affairs:
Yours Sincerely,
………
Comments