• “డిపాజిట్లు తీసుకోలేదు” అనే ప్రకటన అబద్ధమై ఉండే అవకాశం ఉంది.
  వేలాది మంది పబ్లిక్ నుంచి “Investment / Membership / Agreement of Sale / Land venture” పేర్లతో భారీ మొత్తంలో డబ్బులు వసూలు చేసినా — companies act Section 73 ప్రకారం వాటిని Deposits గా పరిగణించాలి.

• కంపెనీ రికార్డ్ లో మాత్రం:

  • Deposits: ZERO

  • Loans / Advances: ZERO

  • Investor / Creditor names: ZERO
    👉 అంటే పబ్లిక్ డబ్బు దాచుకున్నారు.

• Related Party Transactions
  Report లో రాసారు:
  “ఏ Related Party Transactions లేవు.”
  కానీ వాస్తవంగా:

  • Dhanwantari Trust / DFI Group / Other sister companies మధ్య భారీగా లావాదేవీలు జరిగాయి.
    👉 ఇది Section 188 కి, మరియు Section 447, 448 (Fraud & False Statement) కి నేరం.

• Shareholding pattern

  • మొత్తం 10,000 షేర్లు → 100% కుటుంబం (కమలాకర్ & జయశ్రీ) దగ్గరే ఉన్నాయి.

  • Public contributors ఎవరు కూడా shareholder గా, loan creditor గా, debenture holder గా కనిపించడంలేదు.
    👉 పబ్లిక్ డబ్బుతో ప్రాజెక్టులు చేసి, యజమానిత్వం మాత్రం కుటుంబం వద్ద ఉంచారు.

• Financial Numbers దాచడం

  • బాలెన్స్ షీట్ లో main figures చూపకుండా:
    “As per the financial statements annexed” అని మాత్రమే రాశారు.
    👉 బాధితుల డబ్బు trace కాకుండా ఉద్దేశపూర్వకంగా దాచినట్లు కనిపిస్తుంది.

(A) Notice of AGM

• They call the 6th Annual General Meeting on 30 September 2015 at 11:30 AM at the registered office in Raghavendra Hills, Mylardevpally, Hyderabad.

• Ordinary business mentioned:

  1. Approve Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Directors’ Report and Auditors’ Report for year ended 31-03-2015.

  2. Appoint auditors and fix their remuneration.

(B) Board’s Report

From the “BOARD’S REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2015”:

1. Presentation of financials

   • They say they are presenting the audited financial statements for the year, prepared as per Companies Act, 2013.

   • The Independent Auditors’ Report is also said to be attached (but not inside this extracted PDF).

2. Extract of Annual Return – MGT-9

   • They say Form MGT-9 (Extract of Annual Return) is attached as Annexure-I.

3. Performance of the Company

   • Instead of giving numbers, they simply write:

     “As per the financial statements annexed herewith.”

   • So the Board’s Report itself does not show revenue / profit / loss figures.

4. Directors

   • As on 31-03-2015, the directors are:

     • Mr. P. Kamalakara Sharma (DIN 00134889)

     • Mrs. P. Jayasree Sharma (DIN 00134991)

   • They also say:

     • None of the directors are disqualified under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013.

5. Board Meetings

   • They say 4 Board meetings were held during the financial year 2014–15.

6. Deposits
   This is a very important paragraph:

   “The company has not accepted deposits falling within the provisions of Section 73 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2013 during the financial year under review.”

   Meaning:

   • They are formally declaring to ROC / Government that DFI Hospitals Pvt Ltd did NOT accept any “deposits” from the public as per the legal definition.

7. Related party transactions
   Another crucial sentence:

   “There are no Contracts and Arrangements with Related Parties as per Act under review.”

   Meaning:

   • They are declaring that there were no transactions with related parties (for example: other Dhanwantari entities, family-owned firms of directors, trusts controlled by them, etc.) during that year which need to be reported.

8. Directors’ Responsibility Statement
   They give the standard confirmations under Section 134(3)(c) & 134(5):

   • Accounts prepared according to applicable Accounting Standards.

   • They have selected proper accounting policies and applied them consistently.

   • They have taken proper and sufficient care for maintenance of accounting records, safeguarding assets, preventing fraud and irregularities.

   • The accounts have been prepared on a “going concern” basis.

   • They have laid down internal financial controls, etc. (standard boilerplate language).

9. Material changes

   • They say:

     “No material changes and commitments affecting the financial position of the Company between the period from the end of the financial statement to the date of the report.”

   • Meaning:
     After 31-03-2015 till the date of this report, nothing big happened financially which needs to be disclosed.

10. Reserves and Dividend

    • No amount transferred to General Reserve.

    • No dividend declared / paid for 2014-15.

11. Loans, Guarantees and Investments

    • They just say:

      “As per the financial statements annexed herewith.”
      (No details in this text.)

12. Auditors

    • They state that P. Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants are the External Auditors.

    • Appointment of P. Murali & Co. as auditors for financial year 2015–16 is to be placed before the members.

    • Shareholders will authorize directors to fix auditor’s remuneration.

2. MGT-9 – Extract of Annual Return (key points)

From the MGT-9 sections inside this document:

(A) Company basic details

• Name: DFI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED.

• Shows that it is a private company, with its registered office at Raghavendra Hills, Mylardevpally, Near Kattedan, Hyderabad.

(B) Principal business activities

• Under “Principal Business Activities of the Company” they create a table (Sl. No., Name & Description of main products/services, NIC Code, % of turnover).

• But in the extracted text, the actual description is missing / blank (only “1” is visible).

• That looks like either:

  • bad PDF extraction, or

  • they never filled the business description properly.

(C) Shareholding pattern

This is very important:

• Under Shareholding Pattern (Equity Share Capital Breakup) they show:

  • Total shares: 10,000 equity shares.

  • Promoter Category (A) – Indian

    • a) Individual/HUF – 10,000 shares (100%) both at the beginning and at the end of the year.

  • Under the detailed list, it shows:

    • 5,000 shares – P. Kamalakara Sharma

    • 5,000 shares – P. Jayasree Sharma

  • Public shareholding: 0% (no public shareholders).

  • Grand Total: 10,000 shares, 100% held by the two promoters.

So, legally, according to this document, only two people own all the shares of the company.

(D) Indebtedness

• There is a section titled “INDEBTEDNESS OF THE COMPANY INCLUDING INTEREST OUTSTANDING/ACCRUED BUT NOT DUE FOR PAYMENT”, with columns:

  • Secured Loans (excluding deposits)

  • Unsecured Loans

  • Deposits

  • Total Indebtedness

• But instead of numbers, it repeatedly says:

  “As per the financial statements annexed hereto…”

So the exact figures are not printed in this MGT-9 extract inside the file you shared.

(E) Remuneration sections

• For Managing Director / Whole-time Directors / Key Managerial Personnel, again they use:

  “As per the financial statements annexed hereto…”

So no salary/allowance figures are visible in this copy.

3. Where could there be potentially fraudulent or misleading information?

I need to be very clear:
From this PDF alone, I cannot legally certify “this is fraud”.
What I can do is highlight statements which are dangerous or false if your external evidence shows otherwise. Those are the points you can attack in Court.

(1) Statement: “Company has not accepted deposits u/s 73”

They clearly declare:

“The company has not accepted deposits falling within the provisions of Section 73 of the Companies Act, 2013… during the financial year under review.”

Why this is sensitive:

• If DFI Hospitals Pvt Ltd (this company) directly collected money from the public in any scheme which legally qualifies as a “deposit” (even if they called it “membership”, “advance”, “booking amount”, “debenture”, “investment”, “agreement of sale money”, etc.), then:

  • This statement to ROC is false / misleading.

  • It can amount to misrepresentation and even “fraud” under Sections 447 & 448 of Companies Act (false statement in any return, report, certificate, financial statement, etc.).

• However, legally they can argue:

  • “The deposits were taken by another entity – e.g., Dhanwantari Foundation International, some trust, or other group companies – and not by DFI Hospitals Pvt Ltd.”

  • Then, technically this company may say “we did not accept Section 73 deposits”, even though the group collected money.

So whether this line is fraudulent depends on actual flow of money:

• If receipts, bank statements, and ledgers show money came into this company’s bank account as deposits / advances from public, then this line is very attackable.

• If all money went to a different legal entity (trust, LLP, etc.) and not to DFI Hospitals Pvt Ltd, then this line is legally safe for this company, but it still helps you to show how they separated assets and liabilities between multiple entities to escape deposit law.

(2) Statement: “There are no Contracts and Arrangements with Related Parties”

They declare:

“There are no Contracts and Arrangements with Related Parties as per Act under review.”

Red flag:

• “Related party” includes:

  • Directors

  • Their relatives

  • Companies / firms where directors or their relatives are partners or directors

  • Group entities under common control, etc.

If in reality, during 2014–15:

• DFI Hospitals Pvt Ltd had any transaction with:

  • Dhanwantari Foundation International

  • Any DFI group trust / society / partnership

  • Companies or firms controlled by P. Kamalakara Sharma or P. Jayasree Sharma

  • Any relatives’ entities

and those transactions match Section 188 read with Section 2(76) (related party), then this declaration is false.

You have already told me many times that:

• Land, projects, and money have been shuffled between trusts, companies, hospitals, ventures in the DFI group.

If you can prove specific related party transactions in 2014-15 (via:

• bank entries,

• MOUs,

• sale deeds,

• internal minutes,

• invoices between related companies),

then you can show that:

“In the Directors’ Report and MGT-9 of DFI Hospitals Pvt Ltd, the promoters suppressed and falsely denied related party transactions. This is a fraudulent disclosure to the Registrar of Companies and to shareholders.”

(3) Public investors vs shareholding pattern

• MGT-9 shows 100% shares held by only two promoters (5,000 + 5,000).

• However, thousands of outside persons (victims) were made to believe that:

  • They are some form of members / stakeholders in hospital projects, or

  • Their money is building the hospital and they will share benefit.

But in this document:

• No outside investor is shown as a shareholder.

• No outside investor is shown as a debenture holder, preference shareholder, or secured creditor in this extract.

• If crores were collected from public and used for the benefit of DFI Hospitals, but the official record shows 100% ownership only with Kamalakar & Jayasree, this helps you show:

“They used public money to build assets, but legally kept the ownership entirely within the family, keeping investors completely outside the capital structure. The annual return hides the true nature of public contributions.”

That is not a small irregularity; it supports your fraud / cheating narrative.

(4) Principal business activity line appears empty / vague

• Under “Principal Business Activities of the Company” they have a table but no visible description of the main product/service.

• For a hospital company, they should clearly mention something like:

  • “Running Hospitals / Medical services – NIC Code …”

This may be:

• A scanning / PDF extraction defect, or

• A careless or non-compliant filing.

Not a big fraud by itself, but it shows a pattern of poor disclosure.

(5) Over-reliance on “As per the financial statements annexed”

Throughout MGT-9 & the report they repeatedly write:

• “As per the financial statements annexed hereto…”

for:

• Performance of the company

• Loans, guarantees, investments

• Indebtedness

• Remuneration of directors & KMP

By itself this is not illegal, because full figures may be in the balance sheet and P&L.

But from a victim’s perspective:

• The Director’s Report and MGT-9 are supposed to be summarizing key details in a readable way.

• Here, they avoid giving numbers, and keep everything buried only in the detailed financial statements.

• Courts sometimes see this as an attempt to “technically comply, but practically obscure” information.

4. So, is there fraudulent information?

Short answer:

• This report contains several declarations which could be fraudulent if they are contrary to actual facts, especially:

  1. “Company has not accepted deposits u/s 73.”

  2. “There are no contracts and arrangements with related parties.”

• It also shows a structure where:

  • All shares are with two promoters, and

  • No trace of thousands of contributors appears in shareholding or deposit columns.

But to label it as “fraudulent” in Court, you must tie this document to evidence, for example:

1. Bank statements / receipts showing:

   • Money paid by investors that reached DFI Hospitals Pvt Ltd bank accounts as unsecured loans, advances, deposits, etc.

2. Agreements / MOUs / land purchase documents showing:

   • Transactions between DFI Hospitals Pvt Ltd and other DFI entities / trusts / firms, contradicting the “no related party transactions” claim.

3. Victim receipts / brochures / membership documents openly linking hospital projects to public money, while the company’s annual return hides all of them.

Then your argument becomes:

“These statutory filings (Directors’ Report & MGT-9) submitted to the Registrar of Companies contain false statements and concealment of material facts, in violation of the Companies Act, 2013. This is a part of a larger fraudulent scheme to collect money from the public through various Dhanwantari entities while keeping the legal ownership and disclosures restricted to the promoters’ family.”