The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has raised concerns regarding the alleged submission of a forged No-Objection Certificate (NOC) by Drone Federation India (DFI). This certificate was reportedly intended to support DFI’s application for a name change. The MCA’s inspection report outlines that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) informed the ministry that the NOC in question is not authentic.

The inspection documented that the NOC’s file number was not found among DGCA records, suggesting that the document may have been fabricated. Furthermore, the signature attributed to a DGCA official on the NOC was reportedly from an officer who had retired prior to the date indicated on the document.

The MCA’s Assistant Director, Altaf M Shaikh, has recommended penal action against three directors of DFI and its company secretary, Anoop Kumar Pandey, citing potential violations of the Companies Act related to false statements and fraud. The report specifically notes that the allegedly forged certificate was submitted alongside RUN (Reserve Unique Name) applications during the name-change process.

Discrepancies in Legal Proceedings Against DFI

DFI’s application sought to change its name from “Drone Federation India” to “Drone Federation of India.” This proposed name encountered objections, as it could suggest a connection to government endorsement. Despite the MCA’s findings, there seems to be a discrepancy between the allegations raised in the inspection and the charges that follow. The case filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies has not invoked the original provisions surrounding false statements and fraud despite earlier recommendations.

The company and its directors—Rahat Kulshreshtha, Pravin Vinod Prajapati, and Vipul Singh—now face charges under different sections of the Companies Act, which pertain to corporate reporting and maintenance of financial records. This divergence has raised questions about how the initial allegations were processed and the subsequent legal actions taken against DFI.

Concerns have also emerged about a separate irregularity involving the signature of a director on a clarification letter, which was allegedly copied from a Board Resolution. The inspection findings have indicated potential liability under Section 158 for this aspect, compounding the challenges facing DFI.

DFI’s Response and Ongoing Investigations

In the wake of the allegations, DFI’s president, Smit Shah, has categorically denied any misconduct, emphasising that the issue is currently sub judice. Shah has stated that a legal review is underway, and the organisation plans to respond appropriately in due course. The ongoing legal proceedings limit further comments from DFI at this time.

The ministry has subsequently instructed the Registrar of Companies to act upon the findings outlined in the inspection report, adding another layer to the case against DFI. Additionally, the discrepancies between the inspection outcomes and the subsequent legal proceedings have been highlighted in a complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which raises potential issues of non-compliance and corruption, although these allegations remain unverified.

This situation arises amid concurrent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigations into alleged corruption involving DGCA officials, with focus on instances of bribery linked to approvals for drone imports. The investigations include former and current individuals within the DGCA, indicating a broader context of scrutiny surrounding the integrity of regulatory approvals in the drone sector.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share