Vintage Relation spoiled

Everyday we listen about the new business scandals which states that today’s business has forgotten the ethics and principle which should be followed

I want to light out a another exploitation of business ethics . Have you ever heard about Religare Finvest  this name is not new in investment and financing . Companies hires  other who can promote their business but what will happen if these promoters cross the line of ethics . Yes, promoters of Religare Malvinder and Shivinder Singh (singh brothres ) cheated with their client Religare . These promoters made conspiracy with the internal employees to grab the companies money . 

I and you can not even imagine what they had done . They made two fake companies Modland Wears Pvt.Ltd and Artifice Property Pvt Ltd . At the name of these two companies the promotes with the black snakes applied the loan of 162 crore and 165 crore respectively . The surprising thing is both of the loans approved in just 32 minutes , Legally which is almost impossible paper work which had done only for formality . Board of directors was unaware .As everyone gets the reward for their work RBI redflagged the fraud which was taking place inside the walls of companies . Now the Singh Brothers have to pay fine and had to wash hands from the brand promoters as well . Sleeve cap employees also been fired out of the company 

. 

Now the question is this what is going on ?, The person which companies are trusting these persons are cheating with the company . This shows that ethics and principles are not present . As far As my opinion is concerned all which singh brothers have done is completely wrong .If I was  at there place i never do that . For me my loyalty towards my organisation is  prior . Incidents of this type should not be there . My ethics and principles are the first thing for me . No matter what number of chances I m getting I will not cross the limits of my values . We all are the part of society whether it is corporate or not Almost every individual is intelinked with each other .  As per my consideration business is not an activity of one side it can be took place .It is right it is only for benefits but for own benefits we should not exploite others , no one should take the disadvantage from others . The essence is this every individual as well as a company should work with their own principles , values and ethics but should also bother about other’s . I have written this blog only to highlight the current business ethical issues and these ethical issues should be dislodged .  Thanks for read it out

FAKE ADVERTISEMENTS BY COCO-COLA

. In today's era, advertisements have become one of the most famous forms of Marketing Modes. By  selling a beauty products or electronics, each and every aspect gains popularity through advertisement mode. In today's fast changing  if there would be no advertisement, there would be almost no marketing of products through different modes. That tells you the importance of Advertisement.

                                                                                                                                   

However, advertisements prove to be beneficial and honestly only if they are present in an Ethical way. A fake advertising of a product looses importance and indirectly are negative aspects of Marketing. False Advertising is the use of false, misleading, or unproven information to advertise products to consumers. Consumer's ability to difference false advertisements is highly affected by their emotions. Generally, people with positive emotions are more sensitive towards false advertisements. Fake advertisement is often treated as a crime. The advertisement of a particular product should be done in a real and precise way rather than in an unethical and false way. As per the recent analysis, almost 20-30% of the companies uses false advertising to promote their products among the consumers. Is it ethical?

Some of the unethical advertising done by the companies include-

1. Photo bleaching
2. Omitting Information
3. Hidden fees and sub-charges
4. Manipulation of measurement units and standards
5. Fillers and oversized packing
6. Misleading health claims & many more..

 All of the above mentioned unethical ways are very popularly used and exercised by the companies to promote their so-called value-gifted products

. 

 Famous fake advertisements used  by Coke Company. A case was filed against the world’s biggest beverage company, Coca-Cola, claiming it made misleading claims to consumers. Non-profit organization Praxis Project has accused both the beverage giant and the American Beverage Association of downplaying the health risks of sugary soft drinks in order to bolster sales.

Coca-Cola has also been accused of promoting the idea that obesity is caused by a lack of exercise, as opposed to what we consume, through the use of ambiguous phrases such as “calories in, calories out” and “balance”, which are allegedly promoted to children in particular. It is this point Praxis Project has focused on in its lawsuit, claiming Coca-Cola lures in customers from a young age in order to encourage them to develop a lifelong habit. The organization stated in its complaint: “Coca-Cola needs to replenish the ranks of its customers, and it tries to recruit them young.”  In the lawsuit filed in an Oakland, California federal court, Praxis Project likened Coca-Cola’s marketing strategy to that of the tobacco industry in days gone by. Not only does Praxis Project accuse Coca-Cola of promoting products to children, it also argues that, like tobacco corporations, the firm seeks to undermine scientific evidence that has revealed the harmful consequences of consuming its products.

The trend is also gaining ground in the US, with cities including San Francisco and Chicago also implementing a similar taxation based on the grounds that soft drinks have a disproportionate impact on residents’ health.

The Harshad Mehta case: Where time has overtaken justice by a mile

The Big Bull is long dead and his brother has had time to become a lawyer and argue his case. Banks and financial institutions are yet to get their money back. The 1992 stock market scandal shook the nation, but the wheels of justice grind slow, write Shailesh Menon and Maulik Vyas.

"The overseer is attempting to cripple us and debilitate us monetarily," he had told the court, throwing a look at caretaker's seat. He argued to the court to consider his 'downsizing' application which, he trusts, could cut down the "piercing cases" of I-T Department. On the off chance that Ashwin seemed like a legal counselor that day, it was on the grounds that he had gotten one. He had verified a degree in law – in his mid-50s - to mount a decided battle against loan bosses. That one of the heroes of a case.

A FIGHT TO THE FINISH
The Special Court was instituted through an Ordinance on June 6, 1992 (known as ‘Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Ordinance’.The CBI recorded charges against different intermediaries specifically AD Narottam, Bhupen Dalal, Hiten Dalal and Naresh Aggarwal, among others, for participating in the trick, though for a lot littler entireties of cash. A portion of these cases are as yet being sought after by the gatherings concerned. The Harshad Mehta case stands apart absolutely because of its size — the whole of cash and the profile of the blamed. The court-designated overseer has been at its specific employment for more than 24 years now. Occasionally, the caretaker.According to the custodian’s report (number 26), released on January 8, 2016, the Harshad Mehta family has assets worth Rs 1,723.84 crore and total liabilities of around Rs 16,044 crore. The family has to pay 4662 crore to various banks and about Rs 11,174 crore to IT Department (mainly interest accrued and penalties).As on September 2015, the banks were decreed (by Court) to get Rs 1,688 crore, out of which Rs 1,074 crore has already been paid on condition that sum

The bone of contention, if one goes by Ashwin Mehta’s court submissions, is the “high-pitched claims” made by IT Department in its assessment reports. According to Mehta, the IT department has calculated tax liability purely taking into account the revenues of Harshad Mehta (and his affiliate companies) — and not his income.

Harshad Mehta was a broker with significant clientele in the 90s. When the scam erupted, the valuers seemingly failed to segregate Harshad Mehta’s client trades and personal dealings. All trades done between 1991 and 1992 were clubbed as Harshad’s personal trades – and taxed accordingly, at higher tax slabs prevalent in the 90s.
That said, the valuers cannot be blamed as Harshad Mehta did not keep a neat book of accounts. There was no legible way for valuers to distinguish between Harsh.