speak-asia-online-logoYesterday saw the latest hearing of the Solomon James writ 383 petition and whilst the order hasn’t been made public, the general consensus appears to be that the proceedings are now at the mercy of the criminal investigations being conducted by various government agencies.

Noticeably absent from the discussion has been any mention of exit options or subscription refunds.

Of course once the order is made public of course a clearer picture will be made but until then, I thought I’d put up some information regarding Navniit Kkhosla’s refund.

From time to time I’m contacted by Speak Asia’s panelists asking what they should do to go about getting their money back. Not being an advocate or concerned with individual refunds outside of the scope of the business operations of Speak Asia itself, I usually state as such and refer them to seek legal advice.

My interest is and always has been after all with the business model and analysis of the company as a MLM opportunity in general.

Still, with a hearing set four weeks away and Navniit Kkhosla kind enough to forward his story along with his intervention order currently filed in the Supreme Court, I hope this information is of some use to panelists being kept in the dark by Speak Asia and its officials.

Navniit Kkhosla was largely demonized by senior panelists within Speak Asia as being the root cause of the “problems” Speak Asia were having. With Kkhosla being the face of the FIR that the EOW had apparently based their entire investigation on, many believed that if he withdrew his FIR that the investigation would go away.

Kkhosla meanwhile refused to just blindly accept that a writ petition specifically naming 115 panelists seeking to recover their money covered everyone and held firm.

First, an introduction by Navniit Kkhosla in his own words,

I am 59 years old now. I invested my company’s funds in Speak Asia on 23rd Feb, 2011 and 3rd March, 2011. I have fought Speak Asia with my heart and soul since then.

I had to fight when I was totally sidelined by my upline for demanding proper hard copy invoices for my tax records.

I sent my request to Tarak, Dandekar, Kulshreshth and my entire upline including Dipankar Sarkar. Only on threatening them with legal action in this matter did SAOL pay 54 crore as service tax and invoices were issued by Dipankar Sarkar and Rajesh Enterprises issue invoices.

It was very hard emotionally, particularly when so much money was lying invested and recovery of my investment through payment of surveys was totally at the whim of a non-resident company with no base to drag to any authorities. I died a hundred times in the process.

At best well wishers thought I was a fool to have invested so much money. And others ……… I did offer to quit the online survey scheme but I was bluntly told -”no way”. I was also told – “You are alone. What can you do?”

On the night of 11.05.2011 I informed my Director that our investment was stuck and it would be a long fight to get the investment back. I was not aware that delivery would be full term – nine months – 15th March, 2012.

The EOW have been most unhelpful for the recovery of my money.

I have attended bail applications to oppose any relief to the accused – irrespective. I provided the Court the Board resolution authorizing Dandekar to appoint an advocate and file a suit for damages for Rs. 500 crore against Star TV. His bail application was rejected.

I have appeared in the PILs in the Bombay High Court and submitted that in India SAOL was never selling any products or services and the stated business of the company was online surveys and getting investments from new panellists.

I stated in the Bombay High Court before the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Desai that a senior advocate was falsely submitting orally that SAOL was like a MLM company and was selling products like mobile phones.

The PIL was withdrawn and the senior advocate has never appeared in the High Court thereafter.

Kkhosla’s complaint was lodged by the EOW Mumbai as FIR 60/2011. Seeking to quash this FIR, the All India Speak Asia Panelist Association (AISPA) lodged a writ petition (writ 3611) in the Mumbai High Court.

The basic gist of AISPA’s argument was that the Supreme Court was handling the matter of the recovery of funds of all panelists, and therefore FIR 60/2011 was not needed.

Seeking to put to this to test, Kkhosla filed an intervention order with the Supreme Court of India on the 1st March 2012. On the 13th of March, Kkhosla attended a mediation meeting between mediator R.C. Lahoti and the various parties involved in writ 3611.

At 6.00 pm on 13.03.2012 I went to attend the meeting of the Lahoti Committee headed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice RC Lahoti at the India International Centre in New Delhi but was not permitted to participate.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lahoti explained to me that the meeting for the mediation proceedings was only for the parties in Civil Writ Petition no. 383 of 2011.

I explained that I had filed an intervention application in Civil Writ Petition no. 383 of 2011 which was pending. I also explained that I was the complainant in FIR no. 153/2011 later renumbered as CR no. 60/2011 by the EOW of Mumbai Police.

My pleas were not accepted and I came back to Mumbai.

This is exactly what Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lahti said –

“Right now this meeting is only for the parties in CWP no. 383/2011. Later the Court may decide to make others a party. So you can not take part in the mediation proceedings.”

And with this rejection, the illusion that the mediation proceedings as part of writ 383 covered all panelists was shattered. Of course this shouldn’t have been too much of a surprise, seeing as previous court orders from the 383 petition had explicitly directed the mediator to concern himself with the payments of ‘the petitioners’.

The petitioners being the 115 signed panelists who filed the petition along with Solomon James.

With the argument that the Supreme Court writ 383 proceedings in their current state covering all panelists completely ruined, two days after Kkhosla was turned away from the Lahoti Committee, AISPA refunded Kkhosla’s entire invested amount in Speak Asia (~$12,000 USD).

At the time AISPA believed this would dissolve FIR 60/2011 and quash the EOW’s investigation into Speak Asia, but this has thus far proven not to be the case.

The EOW were instead directed to report back to the High Court what exactly was going on at the Supreme Court regarding writ 383 (as I understand it).

In the meantime they’ve continued on with their investigation launching two new cases against the AdMatrix and Seven Rings International, with the latter being the parent company of both Speak Asia and the AdMatrix. Beyond being the parent company, the management of Speak Asia (specifically Indian CEO Manoj Kumar, currently a fugitive in hiding overseas) are linked to all three companies.

Kkhosla’s intervention application was supposed to be heard yesterday, but pending the court order being made public I’m not entirely sure what happened there.

Kkhosla himself stated yesterday that

the matter was adjourned. Let me read the final order when it is posted before I give some more details.

In the meantime, with the next writ 383 hearing set for April 30th, a long wait is ahead of Speak Asia’s panelists whose recovery of funds, in all probability, isn’t even being addressed in writ 383.

Regarding the mediation process, it’s noted that Rule 18 of the Mediation Concilation Rules of the Delhi Mediation Centre states that

On the expiry of ninety days from the date fixed for the first appearance of the parties before the mediator/conciliator, the mediation/conciliation shall stand terminated, unless the Court, which referred the matter, either suo motu, or upon request by any of the parties, and upon hearing all the parties, is of the view that extension of time is necessary or may be useful; but such extension shall not be beyond a further period of thirty days.

The first meeting of the Lahoti Committee took place on the 28th November 2011. 90 days from the 28th puts at roughly the end of February. Granting the maximum extendable time of a further thirty days then puts us at the end of March.

Somewhat worryingly, no announcement has been made by AISPA, Solomon James and the signed petitioners or Speak Asia regarding the conclusion of the Lahoti Committee and/or any forseeable resolution.

Given that the formation of the committee was initially ordered by the Supreme Court to explore the ‘possibility of an amicable settlement’ between Speak Asia and the 115 signed petitioners and the lack of a public resolution, one can only assume that an amicable settlement via mediation was not reached in the 120 days since the first committee meeting.

Looking forward Kkhosla has offered his experience in the recovery of funds to other panelists, advising yesterday that he

trying to organize a method to enable many panelist / investors to file an intervention application in the Supreme Court in CWP 383/11 in a cost effective manner to recover their dues.

Currently the only panelist out of 1.2 million members to have gotten any money back from Speak Asia, one would imagine Kkhosla’s advice and experience would be worth listening to and learning from.

From the sounds of it, the whole process doesn’t sound all that difficult:

I think someone who has invested Rs. 50,000 and above should be able to recover the investment with some efforts and very little expense in a small group. Anybody with an investment of over Rs. 1,00,000 will not be wise to lose his investment.

It is doable. Do not listen to anybody. Just ask for your money. You owe it to yourself and your family. Period.

I had filed the Intervention Application no. 9 of 2012 in person without any advocate. It cost me only Rs. 1,350 as legal fees. Travelling, food expenses, etc were extra.

I reached the Supreme Court at 12.15 pm and left by 5.15 pm after serving the advocates on record and filing my application.

This happened because I know my way around the Supreme Court having lived nearby for 44 years. I had also talked to the registry earlier and printed all the details from the Supreme Court website totaling over 100 pages.

I had to make some minor changes on three pages and in the affidavit.

I was paid the investment by the advocate of AISPA (and confirmed in the High Court) only because I had filed this Intervention Application containing the truth about Speak Asia and the fact that I was not allowed to attend the Lahoti Committee meeting.

Further in Mumbai in CrWP 3611/11 I have been submitting the facts about Speak Asia in the proceedings to the Court.

The expensive Senior Advocates found it difficult to counter the facts about the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia with legal posturing.

The Division Bench was also most cooperative and always heard me fully and understood that I was submitting the facts that the State of Maharashtra / EOW should have submitted immediately on commencement of the proceedings.

This can be done by any other investor also.

Remember FIR, Intervention Application in Supreme Court, Bombay High Court, Lahoti Committee and you get your investment back.

Good luck to all!

As a matter of interest, I’ve included Kkhosla’s intervention order as filed in the Supreme Court below.



I.A. No. 9 of 2012




Solomon James and others .….Petitioners


Union of India & Others ….Respondents


Navniit Kkhosla … Applicant/Intervener





1. That the above mentioned matter is pending in this Hon’ble Court for the purpose of adjudication.

2. That the civil writ petition in question has been filed by certain persons claiming to be panelists of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) inter-alia praying for a direction against the Company for disbursement of payments as per their reward points and for refund of their subscription amounts.

3. That at the outset it is submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the present intervention application has been submitted by the applicant / intervener in person and hence he prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone any technical mistakes.

4. That the applicant / intervener also prays for the assistance of this Hon’ble Court in the proceedings as he is appearing in person because his company PFIC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has lost a large sum of money which was invested in the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia and hence he is unable to engage a counsel.

5. That the applicant / intervener is the Managing Director of PFIC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and is the intervener in the matter of the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. and others which was recorded as FIR no. 153 of 2011 by P.S. Nirmal Nagar and renumbered as CR No. 60 of 2011 by the Economic Offences Wing (hereinafter called the EOW) of Mumbai Police and which matter is being investigated by them.

6. That after the registration of the complaint of the present applicant as FIR no. 153 of 2011 by P.S. Nirmal Nagar and renumbered as CR No. 60 of 2011 by the EOW of Mumbai Police and ten persons have been arrested till now.

7. That the applicant / intervener had learnt from the accused that the investor has to fill surveys online and send it to the company on their website speakasiaonline.com and on an investment of Rs.11,000/- for the first panel two surveys per week were sent and on filing the surveys a payment of Rs. 500/- per survey would be paid.

They assured him that on an investment of Rs. 11,000/- there was an assured income of Rs. 1,000/- per week for one full year of 52 weeks totaling Rs. 52,000/- for twelve months.

That it was further told that each ID could have nine additional sub panels on further investment of Rs. 10,0000/- each and each sub-panel would also be given the same two surveys every week and on filing the surveys a payment of Rs. 500/- per survey would be paid for the sub panels also.

The accused assured me that on investment of Rs 1,01,000/- for each profile there was an assured income of Rs. 10,000/- per week for one full year of 52 weeks totaling Rs. 5,20,000/- for twelve months.

The accused also informed the applicant / intervener that sponsor income of 15% of the survey income would also be paid by Speak Asia on the income of a direct down line investor for each survey filled out by the down line profile.

8. That the accused said that Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. was conducting these surveys for reputed clients like ICICI Bank Ltd., Bata India Ltd., Nestle Ltd., ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Bharati Airtel Ltd. as well as several other reputed companies in India as well as overseas who wanted to invest in India and needed to conduct market surveys for their products and services.

On 12.05.2011 these companies denied that had commissioned Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. to conduct any surveys for them.

That thereafter the media exposed various aspects of the working of Speak Asia and alleged that it was a Ponzi scheme/ money rolling scheme without any customers.

9. That in February, 2011 the accused further informed the applicant / intervener that he should invest in a tripod by making three profiles through an investment of Rs 11,000/- for each profile totaling an investment of 33,000/- and having nine sub-panels each for each of these three profiles investors which would total Rs 3,03,000/-.

The accused explained that one profile would sponsor the other two profiles in the tripod and this would result in reward points being awarded from which new sub-panels could be generated and hence the total investment would be Rs 2,83,000/- instead of Rs 3,03,000/- for a tripod of three profiles and nine sub-panels for each of the three profiles.

10. That the accused also informed that Speak Asia also provides the investor an e-wallet and he could know how much money he has earned from the surveys and the date on which this will become payable. Speak Asia shows the money as payable in the e-wallet 30 days after the completion of the surveys by the investor.

Thereafter the investor sends an online request for payment and he has a choice on the mode of payment – direct through banking channels or alternately through a banker’s cheque / demand draft sent to the residential address recorded at the time of initial registration of the investor.

The accused also explained that alternately the profile can use the money to generate PINs to enroll other investors as investors in the survey scheme of Speak Asia.

11. That based on the assurances of the accused the applicant / intervener agreed to make an initial investment of Rs. 33,000/- in a tripod for generating income by filling surveys online in the survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.

Thereupon Ujjwala and Amit informed him that the sum of Rs. 33,000/- would have to be paid to Mr. Deepankar Sarkar who was a Distributor / Franchise of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. and was based in Raipur because he was one of the 100 original promoters of the survey scheme of Speak Asia in India.

12. That the accused induced the applicant / intervener to invest a total of Rs. 6,06,000in the fraudulent survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd., of which over Rs. 5,00,000/- is by cheques.

13. That the applicant / intervener had already conveyed to his upline that he would not get any other investor to join under him in the online survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. till all the money invested by his company had been received back in full along with the cost of money and the administrative cost of business as was calculated by him in the internal costing sheet.

14. That on the applicant / intervener insisting for invoices and receipts for the investments in the survey scheme he realised that service tax was payable on the transactions for the survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.

That the applicant / intervener spoke to Tarak Bajpai, Ashish Dandekar, Abhishekh Kulshresth and his entire known upline. That the accused shunned the applicant / intervener thereafter and he informed his upline and the company officials that he knew many senior officers in the Government of Maharashtra and Government of India and that invoices must be issued.

That, thereafter, the applicant / intervener later learnt that Speak Asia paid service tax amounting to about Rs 54.0 crore to the Government of India through the Master Distributor and subsequently issued invoices to the Master Distributor who in turn issued invoices to the Franchisees and others for the payments received as investment in the survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.

Thereafter Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. paid additional service tax and the applicant / intervener has learnt from Speak Asia that a total of Rs. 68.0 crore was paid as service tax.

15. That the applicant / intervener learnt that the investors have a choice on how to use their income from filling surveys between generating PINs for enrolling new investors for which they are given a bonus of 5.5% or to request for their dues of money to be sent to them.

In the second option a investor has to choose the mode of payment – directly through online banking channels or alternately through a banker’s cheque / demand draft sent to the residential address recorded at the time of initial registration of the investor.

The investor is charged a penalty fee of 3% by Speak Asia if he chooses to call for his dues in addition to the bank charges payable amounting to about 1.5% of the amount.

Thus Speak Asia gave an indirect incentive of about 10% if a investor did not call for his money but chose to enroll new investors and collected the initial investment from him and thereby kept the Ponzi scheme / money rolling scheme going.

16. That Speak Asia had organized a Maha Mela at Goa on 9th, 10th and 11th of May, 2011 where it claimed more than 8,000 investors had come.

During a Press Conference on 11.05.2011 the Chief Marketing Officer Vivek Gautam had claimed ICICI Bank Ltd., Bata India Ltd., Nestle India Ltd., ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and Bharati Airtel Ltd. were some of the clients for whom Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. had been conducting surveys.

This was a false statement and was denied by the respective companies. This denial was breaking news on the audio visual media and print media from 12th May onwards and the survey schemes were openly branded as fraud by the media.

It was now clear to the applicant / intervener that the business model of the company Speak Asia had no product or sales related income from which the company would pay the investors.

It also became clear that the survey scheme of Speak Asia was a “Ponzi scheme” or money rolling scheme which was banned in India.

17. That Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. claimed through online pop ups that it was shortly opening an office in Goregaon, Mumbai and the interiors of the office were being completed and the office would be inaugurated by 1st of April, 2011. It has not been opened till today.

Around 15.07.2011 Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. has claimed in an online pop up that it is awaiting the permission of the Reserve Bank of India for opening a PE (permanent establishment). No address was given earlier and no address is given even now.

18. That it was clear that the applicant / intervener along with other investors who had come in late had been cheated.

The applicant / intervener has now further learnt / realised that:

a) The business model of the company Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. had no products or sales related income from which the company would pay the investors.

b) The survey scheme of Speak Asia was a “Ponzi scheme” or money rolling scheme which is banned in India and the applicant / intervener along with other investors had been cheated and no further payment would be made by the company for the surveys already completed.

Income was collected by the company solely from new investor investor investing in the scheme. Early investor investors earn more as time passes and the later investors lose if the scheme comes to a halt.

Investment in the “Ponzi scheme” or money rolling survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. has come to a halt.

c) Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. had given two options to an investor to choose from for payment of dues – directly through online banking channels or alternately through a banker’s cheque / demand draft sent to the residential address recorded at the time of initial registration of the profile. This was clearly recorded in the website of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.

After the media exposure from 12.05.2011 onwards that the survey scheme was a fraud and cover up for a money rolling / Ponzi scheme the second option of payment through a banker’s cheque / demand draft sent to the residential address recorded at the time of initial registration of the investor was quietly removed from the website without any information being given to the investors through an online pop up as is the usual practise.

This proves that Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. did not wish to make any further payment to the investors after 12.05.2011.

d) Even the requests for payment of the dues for the surveys completed would not be honoured and the remaining money with the company would disappear under some pretext.

e) Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. claims that the investment made in the online survey scheme by the investors was for e-zines. This is totally false as there is no need to make exorbitant payment for information freely available on the internet.

Additionally for a tripod with nine sub-panels each this means that payment has been made for thirty e-zines and sixty e-zines for the two tripods funded by the company of the applicant / intervener. This is absolutely ridiculous, false and unacceptable.

f) Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. now falsely claims that it is selling e-zines only since its inception. Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. put out its first e-zine on 17.02.2010 and which means that till 12.05.2011 it should have sent two e-zines for each week totaling 64 weeks amounting to 128 e-zines.

In fact till 12.05.2011 Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. has sent only 72 e-zines.

19. Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. has claimed that United Overseas Bank in Singapore asked it to shut down its Bank account with it after giving it a notice period of only two days and the account has been shut down on 27.05.2011.

This cannot be accepted as no Bank can ask its account holder to shut down the account without valid reason and after giving it an opportunity to be heard and time to rearrange its affairs.

20. That obviously the fraudulent survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. was started one day in India and which is the date of the first e-zine being sent namely 17.02.2011.

That there must be persons who were taken on as investors and who must have interacted with Ms Harender Kaur and her management team from overseas as well as recruited in India when this fraud on Indian citizens was started.

That these initial / first group of investors must have known that there was no client for whom the surveys were being conducted and hence it was a totally fraudulent Ponzi / money rolling scheme for which they had joined.

21. That as submitted above the applicant / intervener was induced by the accused to invest a sum of Rs. 6,06,000/- belonging to his Company in two tripods in the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd.

That this investment was made by the applicant / intervener pursuant to ongoing criminal conspiracy between the accused to get more persons to invest in the fraudulent online survey scheme of Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. which admittedly did not have any customers for its surveys and of which fact the accused persons were well.

That the accused persons did this for unlawful profit for themselves and thereby caused unlawful loss to the applicant / intervener.

22. That Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd. is not talking of payments received by the upline as it must have generated many dummy profiles without any payment to siphon the money of the investors in the online survey scheme.

That the upline of the applicant / intervener has also received a large amount of money as binary income for the investments of the applicant / intervener and which money can also be recovered from them as it is ill-gotten gain in criminal conspiracy as they were aware that the survey scheme was fraudulent.

23. That the Economic Offences Wing of the Mumbai Police claim that a large no. of complaints have been received by them from other investors in the fraudulent survey scheme of Speak Asia.

However no FIR has been recorded by the EOW/Mumbai Police against the accused upline and these complaints have been edited and tagged along with the complaint of the applicant / intervener – FIR no. 153/2011 which was renumbered as CR no. 60/2011 by the EOW, Mumbai Police.

24. That a full Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has directed that a FIR has to be recorded immediately on receipt of a complaint.

The Eco but yet complaints of the other applicant / interveners against Speak Asia Directors, management, officers as well we the upline of the individual applicant / interveners have not been recorded as FIRs as submitted above for reasons best known to the Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police.

25. That the Company has been using these proceedings as a tool to cover up their unlawful acts and for preventing the authorities to investigate the offences committed by the Company and its officials.

In fact, even the present proceedings which has been filed by the so-called panelists has been initiated at the behest of none other than the Company itself.

The same is evident from the fact that assuming that each petitioner / panelist has invested a sum of Rs.11,000/- with the Company therefore the instant proceeding for 115 panelists seeks a recovery of Rs.12,65,000/-.

However, the records of the proceedings shows that senior most and highly paid Counsel of the country are being engaged by the 115 panelists for a recovery of merely Rs.12,65,000/-.

This shows that the instant proceedings have been launched at the behest of and at the instance of the Company otherwise no sane person would pay three times the sum of their recovery to lawyers for each hearing and continue doing so without knowing when their money would be returned.

26. Still further, the applicant submits that a perusal of the order sheets shows that on 06.02.2012 neither any submission was made by the Company to deposit money nor was any statement given that the Company was willing to settle the claims of all panelists across the country.

The order only records that the Hon’ble Mediator was to determine the amounts payable to the petitioners (115 panelists) and authorities and only 2 weeks thereafter the Company would make payment in the Registry of this Hon’ble Court.

However, in order to take advantage of the Mediation proceedings in the ongoing criminal matters the Company offered to deposit a sum of USD 10 Million and the same is evident from the minutes of the Hon’ble Mediator held on 13.02.2012.

27. That the said minutes were circulated by the Counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3611 of 2011 in Bombay High Court during the course of proceedings on 23.02.2012.

The said writ petition is another proxy litigation in the Bombay High Court initiated and funded by the Company through certain panelists who have sought quashing of the FIR and again huge amounts are being spent by them by engaging senior lawyers of the country on each date.

In the said proceedings it is being vociferously argued by the petitioners therein that the FIR has to be quashed as the Company is repaying the money.

Thus, in the garb of the mediation proceedings and the proceedings before this Hon’ble Court, the Company is attempting to take advantage in order to mislead various Hon’ble Courts that too through certain persons claiming to be panelists.

28. That the Company has voluntarily deposited a sum of USD 10 Million only to take advantage in criminal proceedings and not with bona fide intentions.

The Company is fully aware that in order to meet the liability of 25 Lac Panelists it would have to cough up a huge amount of Rs.8000 crores but is trying to hoodwink every Court that it has intentions to repay the amounts by showing that it has deposited a sum of Rs.10 Million

29. That, in order to assist this Hon’ble Court about the intentions of the Company and the motive and purpose behind the present litigation, the applicant is seeking his impleadment in the instant petition especially in view of the fact that the FIR which has been got registered against the Company is on a complaint given by the applicant and is being sought to be quashed by misleading the Hon’ble Courts about the instant proceedings.

Thus, the instant application is being filed for the impleadment of the applicant as a respondent for the purpose of properly assisting this Hon’ble Court as also for seeking a clarification of the orders of this Hon’ble Court in order to bring the facts properly before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

It is settled law that mere repayment of the amount does not take away the criminal liability and the culpability of running a scheme by the Company cannot be diminished or diluted by the return of money by the Company through Mediation or the instant proceedings.

30. That grave prejudice would be caused to the applicant and various genuine panelists and the authorities in case the instant application is not allowed and the applicant is not permitted to be added as a respondent in the instant proceedings.

It would not be out of place to mention here at this stage that besides the FIR lodged at the instance of the applicant there are various proceedings and complaints pending against the Company with various authorities and in case the instant application is not allowed, the same would also be adversely affected.

31. That the instant application is bona fide and in the interest of justice.



In the view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most humbly prayed that in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

a) Permit the applicant to intervene in the above matter; and

b) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts of this case.



(Navniit Kkhosla)

Applicant in Person

Place: New Delhi

Filed On: 01.03.2012

AISPA have also filed an intervention order in the 383 writ case,but as per Anjali, unofficial AISPA spokesperson on BehindMLM,

aispa has very much filed an intervention application. when we want it to be heard ,we will have it heard.

Despite the fact that all panelists are clearly not covered in the 383 writ and AISPA’s claims that it represents the interests of all panelists, for now AISPA seem content to sit on their hands.

Those wishing to contact Kkhosla for more information and advice may do so in the following ways:

My email ID is speakasiainvestors@gmail.com

My phone contact no. is 08652154000


Footnote: Before the rumour mill campaign starts up again, I’ll clarify that I’m in no way associated with Kkhosla’s actions and have nothing to do with any Speak Asia court case.

I’m putting up this information only as a matter of public interest regarding the case and to direct the enquiries I get regarding recovery of payment seeing as I myself am not involved in this matter.

I follow Speak Asia as a MLM company within the niche of this blog.

It is a sad reflection of the secrecy that AISPA and Speak Asia operate under that I as a third-party have to share this information about writ 383 and what is actually going on in court.

This is information that both AISPA and Speak Asia should have been openly supplying to the general public and the company’s panelists over the last few months. How either party expect panelists to make informed and educated decisions regarding the recovery of their funds with such a lack of information being circulated amongst panelists is beyond me.

With the mediation process, as per the Mediation Concilation Rules now expired, there simply is no excuse.

But anyway, the cat is out of the bag and hopefully going forward those looking to recover their investment can now do so eyes wide open.