Talk:Rajmohan Pillai

Disclusure of criminal conviction

Many times in December 2008 and January 2009, the creator of this article User:Vinodgr (talk), a newly-registered editor User:Z16bsr2 (talk) and various anonymous IP editors have repeatedly deleted the paragraph about Pillai's fraud conviction, usually without stating any rationale in the edit summary. The only reasons given for such deletions have been:

Portion which is violating the policy of biography of a living person --User:Z16bsr2

The last paragraph is unwarranted and cannot be justified, Hence it is bad to malign any persons name without a reason. --User:Vinodgr

The matter was discussed at the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard and reinstatement of the paragraph was approved on the grounds that

once convicted, his status is that of a criminal until cleared by a higher court or some other means - he *has* been convicted. As long as we are simply reporting the facts, and those appear in a reliable source, there is no BLP issue.

Please discuss the matter here if there are any further arguments based on Wikipedia policies which would support deletion of this material. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation based on conviction

Although Mr Pillai has appealed his conviction, Category:Indian fraudsters would be justified for the time being by the existing conviction. Are there any policy arguments against it? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will add the category. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Category was later removed as pejorative, as discussed at BLP Noticeboard. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Appeal

An editor referred to Indian newspapers as reporting his appeal, here:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive56#Regarding removal of portions which violates BLP

I have mentioned the appeal in this article, but tagged it as needing verification. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Now removed as unsourced. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has added a reliable source for the appeal. Anon editors had been stating that the conviction was suspended; those edits were reverted, but apparently they meant that the sentence was suspended. Sufficient evidence has been provided so I have removed the tag from that paragraph. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirming that evidence of appeal exists -- both on the website cited from the article, and by email. The wording of the decision (dated 18 Dec 2008, key portions only) is that "the High Court... suspend[s] the sentence till the disposal of the criminal appeal..." There is no comment on the sentence in this ruling; the only point relevant is that execution of the original sentence is to be suspended since the subject has filed an appeal. If imprisoned, the subject is also released on bail until the appeal is determined. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of criminal case

I have removed the section regarding a criminal case. There are sources but it is not certain from them whether it is even the right person or what the status of the case is. It would seem that there would be more coverage if the case concerned such a prominent man. Fred Talk 15:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I reinstated it. The identity is not disputed; it is evident from the above discussions, and those linked on the BLP noticeboard, that it is the same person. Case status is pending, see Criminal appeal case 2951 of 2008 at the link provided. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The information about the case was removed again by Nikhilrajn (talk · contribs) claiming without citations that "There are no legal cases against him currently."[1] On the contrary, checking the existing citation provides the following:

Kerala High Court

Case Status Information System

Case Status : Pending

Status Of : CRIMINAL APPEAL 2951 Of 2008

Litigants : J.RAJMOHAN PILLAI Vs. CBI.

Pet's Adv : SRI.S.RAJEEV

Res's Adv : SRI. CHANDRASEKHARAPILLAI

Last Date of Hearing : Monday, July 18, 2016

Next / Final Date of Hearing : ---

Case Updated On : Saturday, July 16, 2016

Category : Criminal Appeals

This confirms that his criminal appeal is still pending. – Fayenatic London 17:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Maligning the Repute of Dr. Pillai

I've been interacting with the Beta Group for the last 6 months and studied the said details. Dr. Rajmohan Pillai who heads the group that brought Coca Cola to India in 1991, controlled Britannia from 1987-1996 and has an annual turn over of $2.1 billion. The addition of the legal case in his biography is not only insignificant but also maligning the repute of Dr. Pillai who is a businessman having business connections worldwide.

Also, the criminal case mentioned therein which resulted in the conviction by the lower court has already been filed for appeal before the higher court. Arguments and Proofs are being provided to the higher court to take cognizance of the fact that: "the case is the creation of certain employees of the said company and their associates who were directly involved in the transaction which is the subject matter of the case. The name of Dr. Pillai had been included in the case with ulterior motive by the rivals in his business field and their intention is to defame the reputation and tarnish his image which he has all over the world. Dr. Pillai had already filed appeal before the higher court questioning the correctness of the findings in the lower court regarding the legal implications and the case is now under consideration of the higher court."

Normal legal cases of this nature in India could take many years before they are finally resolved. In the meanwhile this section is doing exactly what Dr. Pillai's rivals expected, defamation.

In light of the many important initiatives taken by Dr. Pillai this is insignificant and clearly of malicious nature. Hence, I'm removing the section and appeal to the editor to not reinstate the same.

I'm also adding many details on Dr. Pillai I researched during the period and reorganizing the layout to benefit users.

Pramodpotti (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no malice towards Dr Pillai. However, he is a convicted fraudster, and this fact is supported from reliable sources. On an exceptional basis following his personal approach to senior editors, the category for "Indian fraudsters" was removed from the article pending his appeal against conviction. His appeal has not yet been concluded (this can be verified using the case type and number provided in the citation) -- can you inform us as to why this is, specifically on this case, rather than making general statements about the legal process in India? Meanwhile there is no valid WP:NPOV reason to remove this well-cited information from the article. The uncited assertions which you quoted above about motives are the sort of statements that would be included in any such appeal, and cannot be taken as objective or independent assessments of the facts. The article already makes it clear that Dr Pillai has appealed.

Meanwhile, you seem to be providing information about the company rather than the person. Please consider creating a separate article on Beta Group. Do you have sources for the turnover? other editors had assumed that the "billion" referred to capitalised market value of the company rather than turnover. I had no idea that Coca Cola was not available in India before 1991; an article about this Group could be interesting.

However, do read the policy WP:Conflict of interest before contributing on either of these subjects. It would probably be better if you suggest sources on this talk page rather than editing/creating the articles.

Besides, the existing citations indicate that Beta Group was created after some of the events that you refer to above. Please get in the habit of looking for good-quality independent supporting evidence.

Please also consider creating an article on Doctor Pillai's his alma mater, New Age International University. That would probably be a safer place to start. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been interacting with the group for the last 6 months with regards to business dealings from another company. I've interacted with Dr. Pillai and his team over the period and I strongly believe that with regards to the good work that he has done to the society, the point regarding the legal case is insignificant, harmful and incorrect in its stated form. The following are some of the arguments for deleting the section on the legal case and I'll provide Wikipedia citations towards the same effect within a few days:

1. The conviction by the lower court has been stayed by high court on the same day, and till the time the high court doesn't take a hearing on the matter, there is no conviction neither are any fundamental rights of the individual taken away. (references would be given to this effect).
2. There is a delay in settlement of legal cases in India (references would be given to this effect)
3. For this one case against Pace Hitech, which is one of the 9 companies in the Beta Group, there are quite a few others that have been concluded and where Dr. Pillai won the court case against the Government.(I would provide you citations with regard to the case numbers). These could be added to the profile with citations and case numbers. However, this would make the profile look more biased to the legal aspects.
4. All legal cases against a company would be appealed against the managing director or one appointed thereof. In this particular case, the case against Dr. Pillai is the fact that he "should" have been aware of the malpractice in one of his 9 companies - more sort of a moral responsibility. There is no physical evidence that is found to support the same, which you could read from the case details.
5. Dr. Pillai over the period has created many jobs and given support to many entrepreneurs and I think it is unnecessary to give such importance to this case which is still not concluded, in Wikipedia. I would like to give you an argument slightly at the extreme level to try and prove my point. The revolutionary Indian freedom fighter, Bhagat Singh were in many articles referred to as a revolutionary "terrorist" [2] . However, Indians consider him a one of the most influential freedom fighters & martyr, and it would deeply hurt our sentiments to even accept such a point of view and Wiki has taken note of the fact and not included the same in the main page though certain references are added to this effect from good sources.

Hence, I request you to invoke the 5th guiding principle of Wikipedia:Five pillars , to delete this section in the view of the above reasons. If required you could give a link and add this as part of the references, but not the main page.

As you advised, I've created an article on New Age International University. There were certain errors I committed since I was new to Wikipedia and I apologize for the same. Further changes would be made once the discussions reach a conclusion in the discussion forum. Thank you.

Pramodpotti (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying on your talk page and mine. The argument that carries the most weight is:

• • • "The conviction by the lower court has been stayed by high court on the same day, and till the time the high court doesn't take a hearing on the matter, there is no conviction. (references would be given to this effect)."

This is an argument that has not been made before. You will see from the above sections of this page that there have been previous objections to disclosing the legal case here, but I thought these only made the point that the conviction has been appealed and no custodial sentence has been carried out. Please provide citations for there being no conviction -- this would change the position. - Fayenatic (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please find below the explanation with references on point no. 1 which you have given most weight to. However, please note that the other points also carry some relevant weight, especially the points (4) & (5). Point (1) with references explained below by my friend who's a legal consultant:

1. In order to exclude possibility of erroneous decisions by the courts at the lower strata the Indian Judicial system provides for a hierarchy of superior courts with appellate jurisdiction. The Criminal Procedure Code has vested powers with the appellate court to stay Orders of conviction and sentence of the lower court with a view to avoid the execution of such Lower Court orders till a final decision is arrived at by the Appellate Court. Such an authority has been vested with the appellate court in the back ground of the Indian Judicial system which is a lengthy time and consuming affair which is evident from the fact that in the trial against Mr. Pillai there was long delay of 7 years from the date of Charge Sheet to the date of conviction. The appeal preferred by Mr. Pillai is still pending and in all probability is not likely to come up for hearing in the next four to five years.

2.In exercise of power vested in the appellate court for the reasons stated above, immediately on presentation of the Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, the High Court was pleased to Stay the Lower Court Order during the pendency of the appeal. The stay order in fact has in effect has taken away the conviction till the disposal of the appeal and impliedly the conviction is not in existence.
The Code of Criminal Procedure Section 389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail

3. The supreme court of India has held in the case of Nava Jyoth Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2007 Sc.1003) that the appellate court is competent to suspend the sentence as well as the Order of conviction under Sec.389 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Order of stay passed by the Hon’ble court under the above provision has eclipsed the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal.
Navjot Singh Sidhu vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 January, 2007

4. In the context of the suspension of conviction and sentence by the appellate court it would not to out plea point
out to Sec.283 of the Indian companies act 1956.
Section 283 in The Companies Act, 1956
The relevant portion of which is reproduced below:-
S.283, Vacation of office by Directors.
(1)The office of a Director shall become vacant if…….
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
(e) he is convicted by a Court of any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than six months.
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
(2)Notwithstanding anything in clauses(d)and(e)and (j) of sub-section (1), the disqualification referred to in those clauses shall not take effect ---
(a) for thirty days from the date of the adjudication, sentence or order:
(b)where any appeal or petition is preferred within the thirty days aforesaid against the adjudication, sentence, or conviction resulting in the sentence, or order until the expiry of seven days from the date on which such appeal or petition is disposed of:
or
(c) where within the seven days aforesaid, any further appeal or petition is preferred in respect of the adjudication, sentence, conviction, or order, and the appeal or petition, if allwed, would, result in the removal of the disqualification, until such further appeal or petition is disposed of.

5. The provisions has recognized the principles of eclipse of the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal in the superior court in so far as the section. state that a director of a company convicted by a lower court can continue to hold the position of Director during the pendency of appeal preferred by him before this High Court and Supreme Court.

In the light of the above noted facts and law it is only just and proper that the portion pertaining to the “Legal Case” of the Profile of Dr. Pillai be taken off.

12:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Pramodpotti (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these clarifications. In 2009 a senior editor confirmed receipt of a scan of the order suspending the sentence. I will ask him to confirm whether it also states that the conviction was suspended. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been informed by a person who has seen the court document that it clearly states that the sentence was suspended, but does not refer to the conviction. You have demonstrated that the appeal court has power to also suspend a conviction in cases such as politicians, so all we need is evidence that this happened in this case. Can Mr Pillai provide evidence, privately or otherwise, that the appeal court suspended his conviction? - Fayenatic (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me do 2 things:

1. talk to the friend of mine who is the legal consultant and understand the logic in layman's language
2. try and get the scanned copy of the court document by talking to Mr. Rajmohan Pillai

where should I email you if I get possession of this document? Pramodpotti (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a dropbox or similar facility where the file could be uploaded temporarily? if so then you could send me the URL privately using the "Email this user" link from my talk page. I have asked someone to advise whether there is a protocol for such matters, i.e. whether you should make it available directly to me or to some official group address. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've talked to one of Mr. Pillai's lawyers. The document states as you've mentioned states that the sentence is suspended. I'm uploading the same and emailing you the link shortly after this
The following if the argument:
The sentence is suspended implies that the conviction is eclipsed till the matter is disposed by the higher court (Please refer the point (2) referred to by the legal consultant in my earlier argument)

However, my argument is that a case where no decision is yet taken due to delays in the Indian Legal system shouldn't be posted in the profile of a person whose actual contribution to Indian society has been the creation of jobs & entrepreneurs through his expanding business empire. Pramodpotti (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

'I haven't been able to figure out how to email the link privately. if you could kindly email me at pramodpotti@gmail.com' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramodpotti (talk • contribs) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This link should work to email me via Wikipedia, if you are sending a link (as opposed to an attachment): Special:EmailUser/Fayenatic_london.

As I understand it, the appeal court has two separate powers, and exercising one does not imply the other. The sentence is suspended, meaning that Mr Pillai does not have to go to prison, nor is his fine payable, while he waits for the appeal to he heard. However, this does not automatically suspend the conviction. The Nava Jyoth Singh Sidhu case established that the Court does have a separate power to suspend a criminal conviction, pending the appeal. The court did suspend Singh Sidhu's conviction, so that he could continue his work as an MP. However, if the Court did not explicitly suspend Mr Pillai's conviction, then under the law he remains a person convicted of fraud. It is clear from the citations that the case took at least 7 years to come to court, but Mr Pillai was not able to prepare a convincing defence in that period. The Companies Act permits him to continue as a company director pending the appeal, but if the Court did not see fit to suspend his conviction, then it remains a relevant and notable incident to be included in the article. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fayenatic London,

Your understanding of the individual points is quite correct. However our interpretations differ, let me try to explain my view point:

The suspension of sentence is only done only after the higher court studies the report of the lower court, takes a hearing and concludes the possibility of a wrong judgement

• Mr. Sidhu's case was to establish the fact that ONLY WHEN the suspension of conviction is required by the appellant to carry out any statute or constitutional right as per the Government of India, which Mr. Sidhu required if he contested elections, the higher court could grant that to the appellant when deemed fit.

i.e, The suspension of conviction is only done only after the higher court studies the report of the lower court, takes a hearing and concludes the possibility of a wrong judgement AND the conviction could deem the appellant disqualified to carry out any duty as per any statute of the Government of India

• Dr. Pillai is a business man and the Chairman and Managing Director of Beta Group. The link to companies act proves that he is fit to carry out his duties as the director of the company.

So technically Dr. Pillai can't or needn't appeal against conviction since he is not disqualified as per any Government of India statute through which he cannot perform his official duties neither are any of his constitutional rights taken away

• Hence Dr. Pillai's lawyer appealed only against the the sentence and after hearing the case, the higher court concluded the possibility of a wrong judgement from the lower court and has given a suspension on the execution of the sentence
• So in this case, the suspension of appeal has eclipsed the order of conviction till the higher court concludes the case.

You can read into the links given earlier and you can come to the same conclusion. I hope you understand and appreciate the logic. It is hence unnecessary to malign his biography by putting this section. We should remove it.

Regards, Pramodpotti (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I regret that I do not come to the same conclusion. It appears that you were initially misled by your own sources, otherwise you would not have written above "The conviction by the lower court has been stayed by high court on the same day", when it was only the sentence that was suspended.

I am unmoved by the other arguments such as the comparison with Bhagat Singh. Wikipedia does not exist to promote anyone's career or business interests, but to cover notable aspects of notable subjects from a neutral point of view.

You also added information to this article stating that Beta bought Barista from Sivasankaran, and doubled its money on a subsequent sale to Lavazza, but I cannot find any confirmation that the first transaction was completed; indeed, that account is contradicted by sources indicating that Lavazza bought Barista directly from Sivasankaran, e.g. Rediff. No doubt you offered your contributions in good faith, but without citations from reliable sources, your contributions may have to be reverted. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fayenatic London, Following is information I received through interaction with Beta Group. Regarding Barista, Beta Group had agreed to purchase from Mr. Sivasankaran and they had signed the legal agreements. Within a month's time from the deal signing when the operations were to be taken over Lavazza was willing to pay a significant premium over the deal amount agreed with Beta Group. Since legal agreements were signed, there were negotiations and the premium over Beta's acquisition was shared. There is no article on this on net so I cannot give any reference.
Appreciate your time & efforts to look into the arguments. I'm still not convinced of having such a huge portion on the legal case, a link on references would have been better in my opinion but I believe it's your call. Thanks again. Pramodpotti (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thank you. Unfortunately, information received from personal contacts is "original research" and not allowed to be published here under Wikipedia's core principles. Even if the transaction cannot be verified on the web, it would be sufficient if the had been published on paper in reliable sources e.g. a broadsheet newspaper or business magazine, if someone was able to cite the publication and date.

The four lines on the legal case did not strike me as a "huge portion", but I have demoted the details of the case into the footnotes. I also found and added a small amount of info on Mr Pillai's early life to try to balance up the article somewhat. More would be welcome. Does Mr Pillai do press interviews, or just news releases?

Public information on the Beta Group seems to be very scarce. The website has no financial info, and most press articles are announcements about its plans rather than statements of its achievements, so it is hard to know whether any of these came to fruition. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rajan Pillai

I removed the following section as relating to Rajan Pillai rather than to Beta Group. Rajan appears to be a sufficiently notable figure to be the subject of a separate article, but I have not seen a reason to keep this material in Rajmohan Pillai's article.

• Beta Group was instrumental in Coca Cola’s foray into India in 1991 when it was set up as a joint venture, with Beta Group owning 60% stake. After operating the joint venture successfully for 3 years, Coca Cola bought out the majority stake and started operations directly in India from 1993.
• Beta Group (10%) along with American cookie company RJR Nabisco Inc (38%), were the major stake holders in Britannia Industries Ltd from 1982. Britannia Industries Ltd manufactures and sells biscuits, cookies, bread, rusk, cakes and dairy products across the world. Britannia is the market leader of biscuits in India. Beta Group took control of Britannia in 1987 buying out the shares of Nabisco and lead Britannia operations internationally till 1996 when it was taken over by the Wadia Group.
• Beta Group along with Tata Group were the promoters of Indian Resorts Hotels Ltd. which started its operations in Goa. Indian Resorts Hotels Ltd. was later merged with the The Indian Hotel Ltd, which operates the Taj Group of Hotels worldwide.

- Fayenatic (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

@Unitedphoenix: Your edits violate WP:NPOV and are not suitable for this article. Please stop reverting or you will be blocked for edit warring. shoy (reactions) 15:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)