Mumbai: A special court last week summoned former Mumbai mayor Kishori Pednekar’s son Saiprasad Pednekar, a firm linked to him and three others for allegedly submitting false information to the Registrar of Companies (ROC). They have been directed to appear before the court on February 6.
Those summoned include M/S Kish Corporate Services India Pvt Ltd, additional director Saiprasad, directors Shaila Gavas, Prashant Gavas, and another additional director Girish Revankar.
“On perusal of the complaint and the documents and upon aforesaid facts and circumstances prima facie case is made out against the M/s Kish Corporate Services India Pvt Ltd and its directors mentioned in the complaint as accused,” the court observed while issuing summons to Saiprasad and others.
The deputy registrar of companies had initiated the proceeding after BJP leader Kirit Somaiya had filed a complaint pointing out several discrepancies in the firm such as incorrect registered office address and incomplete report/annual returns.
Somaiya had alleged that the company and others had accepted submission of false/forged documents while registering, incorporating the firm and subsequently changing its registered office and that they had forged the sign of the owner of the premises.
In support of the complaint, Somaiya had attached a copy of the affidavit by Prashant Gavas filed before the high court. In the affidavit, Prashant Gavas had admitted that the leave and licence agreement dated July 6, 2017 did not bear the photo and signature of Sanjay Andhari, the original owner of the premises shown as the registered office of the firm. However, the firm had submitted the same agreement at the time of changing the registered office showing a signed agreement.
{{/usCountry}}In support of the complaint, Somaiya had attached a copy of the affidavit by Prashant Gavas filed before the high court. In the affidavit, Prashant Gavas had admitted that the leave and licence agreement dated July 6, 2017 did not bear the photo and signature of Sanjay Andhari, the original owner of the premises shown as the registered office of the firm. However, the firm had submitted the same agreement at the time of changing the registered office showing a signed agreement.
{{/usCountry}}The ROC in the complaint said that on the basis of the allegations raised by Somaiya when the firm was called, they gave evasive answers. Hence a formal complaint was filed to prosecute the firm and its directors for submitting false information.