|
Report Date : |
15.07.2014 |
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
|
Name : |
DEEP SHREE GREEN |
|
|
|
|
Registered
Office : |
Housing Scheme, |
|
|
|
|
Country : |
|
|
|
|
|
Year of
Establishment : |
Not Divulged |
|
|
|
|
Capital
Investment : |
Not Divulged |
|
|
|
|
Legal Form : |
Partnership Concern with an Unlimited Liability of the Partners |
|
|
|
|
Line of Business
: |
Real Estate Developers. |
|
|
|
|
No. of Employees
: |
Not Divulged |
RATING & COMMENTS
|
MIRA’s Rating : |
Ca (12) |
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
11-25 |
Ca |
Adverse factors are apparent. Repayment of interest and principal sums
in default or expected to be in default upon maturity |
Limited with
full security |
|
Status : |
Moderate |
|
|
|
|
Payment Behaviour : |
Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Litigation : |
Clear |
|
|
|
|
Comments : |
Subject is an established partnership concern having moderate track
record. Mr. Varun Raseswat partners provided very few general information and
denied to disclose financial details. Payment terms are unknown. The concern can be considered for business
dealings on a secured trade terms and condition. Note: There is no case against subject. However, some cases are
found on subject partners as a defendant. |
NOTES:
Any query related to this report can be made
on e-mail: infodept@mirainform.com
while quoting report number, name and date.
ECGC Country Risk Classification List – March 31, 2014
|
Country Name |
Previous Rating (31.12.2013) |
Current Rating (31.03.2014) |
|
|
A1 |
A1 |
|
Risk Category |
ECGC
Classification |
|
Insignificant |
A1 |
|
Low |
A2 |
|
Moderate |
B1 |
|
High |
B2 |
|
Very High |
C1 |
|
Restricted |
C2 |
|
Off-credit |
D |
INDIAN ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
N E W S
The economy grew 4.7 %in 2013/14, marking a
second straight year of sub-5 % growth – the worst slowdown in more than a
quarter of a century. The data was below an official estimate of 4.9 % annual
growth and compared with 4.5 % in the last fiscal year. However, the current
account deficit narrowed sharply to $ 32.4 billion at 1.7 % of gross domestic
product, in 2013/14 from a record high of $ 98.8 billion or 4.7 %, the year
before.A sharp fall in gold imports due to restrictions on overseas purchases
and muted import of capital goods helped shrink the current account deficit.
Online retailer Flipkart has acquired fashion
portal Myntra as it prepares to battle with the rapidly expanding
General Motors will start exporting vehicles
from its Talegaon plant near Pune in the second half of 2014. GM was one of the
few global carmakers that was using its
Google has overtaken Apple as the world’s top
brand in terms of value, according to global market research agency Millward
Brown. Google’s brand value shot up 40 % in a year to $ 158.84 billion. The top
10 of the 100 slots were dominated by US companies.
Infosys lost another heavy weight when B G
Srinivas, a board member put in his papers. He is the third CEO-hopeful to quit
after Chairman N R Narayana Murthy’s return to the company – Ashok Vemuri and V
Balakrishnan being the other two.While Vemuri went on to lead IGate,
Balakrishnan joined politics.
Naresh Goyal – promoted Jet Airways posted
biggest quarterly loss – Rs 2153.37 crore – in the three months ended March 31,
mainly because it has been offering discounts to passengers to fill planes.
William S Pinckney – Chairman and CEO of
Amway
Pfizer has abandoned its attempt to buy
AstraZeneca for nearly $ 118 billion after the latter refused an offer of 55
pounds a share.
RBI DEFAULTERS’ LIST STATUS
Subject’s name is not enlisted as a defaulter
in the publicly available RBI Defaulters’ list.
EPF (Employee Provident Fund) DEFAULTERS’ LIST STATUS
Subject’s name is not enlisted as a defaulter
in the publicly available EPF (Employee Provident Fund) Defaulters’ list as of
31-03-2012.
INFORMATION PARTED BY (GENERAL DETAILS)
|
Name : |
Mr. Varun Raseswat |
|
Designation : |
Partner |
|
Contact No.: |
91-9829232232 |
|
Date : |
10.07.2014 |
|
Name : |
Mr. Varun Raseswat |
|
Designation : |
Partners |
|
Contact No.: |
91-9829037980 |
|
Date : |
10.07.2014 |
LOCATIONS
|
Registered Office : |
Housing Scheme, |
|
Tel. No.: |
Not Available |
|
Mobile No.: |
91-9829232232 (Mr. Varun Raseswat) 91-9829037980 (Mr. Varun Raseswat) |
|
Fax No.: |
Not Available |
|
E-Mail : |
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate Office : |
1-D-14, SFS, |
|
|
|
|
Showroom : |
234, |
PARTNERS
|
Name : |
Mr. Varun Raseswat |
|
Designation : |
Partner |
|
Address : |
3, Talwandi, Nursery Yojana, |
|
|
|
|
Name : |
Mr. Vinod Raseswat |
|
Designation : |
Partner |
|
Address : |
3, Talwandi, Nursery Yojana, |
BUSINESS DETAILS
|
Line of Business : |
Real Estate Developers. |
|
|
|
|
Terms : |
|
|
Selling : |
Cash and Credit (30 Days) |
|
|
|
|
Purchasing : |
Cash and Credit (30 Days) |
GENERAL INFORMATION
|
Customers : |
Retailers and Others |
|
|
|
|
No. of Employees : |
Not Divulged |
|
|
|
|
Bankers : |
Not Divulged |
|
|
|
|
Banking
Relations : |
-- |
|
|
|
|
Auditors : |
Not Divulged |
|
|
|
|
Sister Concerns: |
Deep Shree
Buildcon Limited Address: 1-D 14, SFS, Line of Business: Builder CIN No.: U45201RJ2003PLC018540 |
CAPITAL STRUCTURE
|
Capital Investment : |
|
|
Owned : |
Not Divulged |
|
Borrowed : |
Not Divulged |
|
Total : |
-- |
FINANCIAL DATA
[all figures are
in Rupees Millions]
NOT DIVULGED
The above information has been declined by Mr. Varun Raseswat (Partner) and Mr. Vinod Raseswat (Partner)
Note: Sole Proprietary and Partnership concerns are
exempted from filing their financials with the Government Authorities or
Registry.
LOCAL AGENCY FURTHER INFORMATION
|
Sr. No. |
Check List by Info Agents |
Available in
Report (Yes / No) |
|
1] |
Year of Establishment |
No |
|
2] |
Locality of the firm |
Yes |
|
3] |
Constitutions of the firm |
Yes |
|
4] |
Premises details |
No |
|
5] |
Type of Business |
Yes |
|
6] |
Line of Business |
Yes |
|
7] |
Promoter's background |
No |
|
8] |
No. of employees |
Yes |
|
9] |
Name of person contacted |
Yes |
|
10] |
Designation of contact
person |
Yes |
|
11] |
Turnover of firm for last
three years |
No |
|
12] |
Profitability for last
three years |
No |
|
13] |
Reasons for variation
<> 20% |
----- |
|
14] |
Estimation for coming
financial year |
No |
|
15] |
Capital in the business |
No |
|
16] |
Details of sister
concerns |
Yes |
|
17] |
Major suppliers |
No |
|
18] |
Major customers |
No |
|
19] |
Payments terms |
Yes |
|
20] |
Export / Import details (if
applicable) |
No |
|
21] |
Market information |
----- |
|
22] |
Litigations that the firm
/ promoter involved in |
----- |
|
23] |
Banking Details |
No |
|
24] |
Banking facility details |
No |
|
25] |
Conduct of the banking
account |
----- |
|
26] |
Buyer visit details |
----- |
|
27] |
Financials, if provided |
No |
|
28] |
Incorporation details, if
applicable |
No |
|
29] |
Last accounts filed at
ROC |
No |
|
30] |
Major Shareholders, if
available |
No |
|
31] |
Date of Birth of Proprietor/Partner/Director,
if available |
No |
|
32] |
PAN of
Proprietor/Partner/Director, if available |
No |
|
33] |
Voter ID No of
Proprietor/Partner/Director, if available |
No |
|
34] |
External Agency Rating,
if available |
No |
LITIGATION DETAILS
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
U I T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
IN
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1568/2012
With
Stay Application No.15978/2012
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8918/2011
Urban Improvement Trust,
Date of Order ::: 05.04.2013
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta
Shri Rajesh Mootha, counsel for appellants
Shri Akshay Tyagi, counsel for respondents
//Reportable//
By the Court:-
This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 06.10.2012 whereby writ petition was allowed and a mandamus was issued to the respondents (appellants herein) directing them to refund the total amount deposited by writ-petitioners towards purchase of Plots No.3, 5 and 6, except for Plot No.2, along-with 15% interest from 01.04.2011 till the actual payment. Pursuant to advertisement dated 09.12.2010 in local newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar' for sale of five plots admeasuring 1355.76 square feet situated on land of Khasra No.51 under the District Centre Scheme of Urban Improvement Trust, Kota, (for shot, 'the UIT') by way of auction, the writ-petitioners purchased in auction four plots bearing No.2, 3, 5 and 6 being the highest bidder. The Secretary of the UIT issued sanction letters on 17.01.2011 to the writ-petitioners with regard to purchase of aforesaid plots. It is not disputed that writ-petitioners deposited 1/4th amount of the total cost, on 10.12.2010, and the balance ¾ was to be deposited by them by 15.02.2011 with the clear stipulation that on failure to do so, interest at the rate of 15% per annum was chargeable for the period of delay. Writ-petitioners no.1 and 3 deposited the ¾ balance amount on 08.02.2011 for plots no.3 and 5, respectively. For Plots no.2 and 6, the writ petitioners deposited such amount on 03.03.2011 i.e. after expiry of due date, and, therefore, they also deposited the requisite amount of interest. The writ petitioners, having deposited the whole amount in March, 2011, requested the appellants UIT to get the sale-deed registered and thereafter, on failure to do so, they served upon them a notice for demand of justice on 25.06.2011. When nothing was done, the writ-petitioners preferred writ petition before this court inter-alia with following prayers:-
“A. Direct the respondents to get the Registry done with regard to the Plot No.2, 3, 5 and 6 under the District Centre Scheme in Khasra No.51 in the name of petitioners;
B. Prohibit the U.I.T. Kota from taking any coercive step or prejudicial action such as not to reduce or increase the size with regard to the Plot No.2, 3, 5 and 6 under the District Centre Scheme in Khasra No.51 purchased by the petitioners;
C. Prohibit the Respondent no.5 Union Bank of India from taking any coercive step or prejudicial action against the petitioners in respect of their residential house 3, Nursery Yojna, Talwandi, Kota and more particularly undertaking the said house with regard to setting the Home Loan be taken by petitioners;
D. any other order which this
The appellants contested the writ petition by filing reply thereto before the Single Bench contending that size of the plots in question, on specific measurement, was found more than what was notified in the auction notice and, as such, the writ-petitioners were required to pay extra amount for the excess size of plots, which, despite being required, they failed to deposit and that is why the delay occurred in getting the sale-deeds/deeds of conveyance registered. It was also apprised that there was dispute with regard to auctioned Plot No.2 between the appellant UIT and the private party, who had filed a civil suit, which was dismissed and the appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed. Then the mater travelled to this court on behalf of private party by way of a Writ Petition No.485/2011 and an interim stay was granted on 17.01.2011. It was thereafter that the writ-petitioners moved an application before the appellant UIT for refund of the amount in respect of the Plot No.2, which was refunded by appellants UIT on 25.07.2011 The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in a different way than what was prayed for, and by the impugned judgment, directed the appellants to refund total amount deposited by the writ-petitioners, except for Plot No.2, along-with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 01.04.2011 till the actual payment. What persuaded the learned Single Judge in taking this view was the fact that the writ-petitioners had taken home loan of Rs.36,00,000/- from the Union Bank of India and they were required to do the needful by way of deposit of the documents of plots purchased in auction within a period of two months. Since the sale-deeds were not executed by the appellants UIT, the final notice for submitting the documents within thirty days was served upon the writ-petitioners on behalf of the Bank on 24.06.2011, or else it was threatened that their interim security shall be forfeited against the final settlement of the home loan. Shri Rajesh Mootha, learned counsel for appellants, has argued that learned Single Judge has granted a relief to writ-petitioners, which was not, in fact, prayed for by them. The writ petition was filed only for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the appellant UIT to get the sale-deed registered in respect of Plots No.2, 3, 5 and 6, whereas learned Single Judge has directed for refund of the total amount with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum. It was argued that learned Single Judge failed to take notice of or may be that his attention was not invited to, the conditions of the auction-notice, published in the advertisement dated 09.12.2010, especially clause no.8 of the conditions, which imposed a condition that the auction shall be made according the size of the plots as notified, which may vary at the time of delivery of physical possession. In case, excess land is found, then additional amount of the excess land shall have to be deposited by the auction-purchaser or, in case, size is found lesser then the excess amount so deposited shall be refunded. Writ-petitioners were fully aware of this condition. Despite being required, they failed to pay the differential amount of the excess land of the plots. Reference was made to the letters dated 08.07.2011 served upon the writ-petitioner no.1 Vinod Rasewat with regard to Plot No.3, writ-petitioner no.2 Mrs. Deepa Rasewat with regard to Plot No.6 and writ-petitioner no.3 Varun Rasewat with regard to Plot No.5. It is mentioned therein that the measurement of auctioned Plot No.3 has been enhanced by 23.85 square meter, which is equal to 250.62 square feet, and that of Plot No.6 has been enhanced by 15.75 square meter, which is equal to 169.47 square feet and that of Plot No.5 has been enhanced by 18.45 square meter, which is equal to 198.52 square feet. It was further mentioned that the further proceedings would be initiated only on deposit of the additional amount of extra land. As per auctioned rate of Plot No.3 i.e. Rs.2660/- per square feet, the additional amount comes to Rs.6,82,625/-, and that of Plot No.6 i.e. Rs.2350/- per square feet the additional amount comes to Rs.3,98,254/-, and that of Plot No.5 i.e. Rs.2400/- per square feet the additional amount comes to Rs.4,76,452/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited attention of the court towards the auction-notice dated 25.11.2010 and particularly clause no.8 of the conditions, which is on record of the writ petition as Annexure A/4.
It is argued that unless the writ-petitioners would have challenged the said condition or otherwise amended the prayer clause with permission of the court, the appellants UIT would not be aware of their case, and therefore the appellants UIT have been denied the opportunity to contest the matter on merits and, as such, learned Single Judge was not justified in awarding enormous interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Shri Akshay Tyagi, learned counsel for writ-petitioners, opposed the appeal and submitted that the writ-petitioners were not apprised of aforesaid clause no.8 of the conditions at the time of auction and they came to learn about the same much subsequently. It was argued that even if in the writ petition the prayer was made for a direction to the appellant UIT to get the sale-deed registered, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in moulding the relief in view of the prayer made by the writ-petitioners. A perusal of the auction-notice (Annexure-A/4) filed with the reply to the writ petition, clearly indicates that clause 8 of the conditions of the auction-notice, provided that auction shall be made as per the size indicated therein but while handing over physical possession of the plots, the size thereof may vary. The size of the plots being excess, auction purchaser shall be required to deposit the additional amount of the excess land or the size being lesser the additional amount of lesser land deposited by him shall be refunded. Though, the learned Single Judge has taken note of this fact in Para 6 and 7 of the judgment but has not given any finding as to when this was one of the conditions of the auction-notice, what would be the effect of writ-petitioners not making payment of the value of the land in excess of what was mentioned in the auction-notice. It was a contractual matter between the two parties and when one party having known full implications, participated in auction proceedings and one of the conditions of the auction was this, then that party cannot be in law allowed to resile from such condition. The appellants, when they argue that they were taken by surprise by the order of refund of the total amount with interest at the rate of 15% per annum, therefore, are justified because the delay in execution of the sale-deed occurred on failure of the writ-petitioners in depositing the additional amount of excess land and thus the delay in not execution of the sale-deed was not without any reason. Learned Single Judge, however, has criticized the conduct of the appellant UIT in putting the plots in question, to auction without first verifying their sizes but nevertheless has not given any finding either way as to the validity of aforesaid clause no.8 of the conditions of auction-notice, referred to above, which, in fact, was not under challenge. Learned Single Judge, in our view, was justified in directing the appellants UIT to pay interest on the amount of sale-consideration, which the writ-petitioners deposited for purchase of Plot No.2, because such amount was retained by the appellant UIT for a considerable time and thereafter refunded to the writ-petitioners. Amount had to be refunded because of litigation regarding that plot and status-quo order passed by the courts at different stages including by this court, owing to which possession of the said plot could not be handed over to the writ-petitioners. The amount was therefore refunded to the writ-petitioners not for any fault on their part but due to litigation. However, such justification may not be available in so far as the refund of the sale-consideration in respect to other three plots is concerned. This is so because the appellants UIT were still willing to get the sale-deed registered provided the writ-petitioners paid the additional amount demanded for the excess land. There is this distinction between two set of cases. The rate of interest of 15% for refund of sale-consideration of Plot No.2, however, appears to be rather on higher side. In our considered view, it would be just and proper if the interest on the said amount is paid at the rate of 9% per annum. Considering, however, that the writ-petitioners are not willing to retain the plots, auctioned to them, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with that part of the direction contained in the impugned judgment whereby the appellants UIT have been directed to refund the amount so deposited. However, we are persuaded to set-aside the part of the direction of the judgment requiring thereby the appellant to also pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum with refundable amount. This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the appellants UIT are directed to refund the entire amount so deposited by the writ-petitioners in respect of Plots No.3, 5 and 6. The amount of refund shall also include the amount of interest paid by the writ-petitioners for delayed payment at the rate of 15%. Such amount shall be required to be refunded by the appellants UIT to the writ-petitioners within a period of one month from the date copy of this order is produced before them. In the event of their failure to make the payment within one month, they shall be liable to pay interest on such amount at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. However, the direction contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge with regard to payment of interest at the rate of 15% on the refunded amount of Plot No.2, which was found disputed and was not available to be auctioned, is maintained. But, the rate of interest on the said refunded amount is also reduced from 15% to 9% per annum. That amount shall also be refunded within a period of thirty days including the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period the money of the writ-petitioners was retained by the appellants UIT. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. This also disposes of the stay application.
(Nisha Gupta) J. (Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//97
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Giriraj Prasad Jaiman
PS-cum-JW
CMT REPORT (Corruption, Money Laundering & Terrorism]
The Public Notice information has been collected from various sources including
but not limited to: The Courts,
1] INFORMATION ON
DESIGNATED PARTY
No exist designating subject or any of its beneficial owners,
controlling shareholders or senior officers as terrorist or terrorist organization
or whom notice had been received that all financial transactions involving
their assets have been blocked or convicted, found guilty or against whom a
judgement or order had been entered in a proceedings for violating
money-laundering, anti-corruption or bribery or international economic or
anti-terrorism sanction laws or whose assets were seized, blocked, frozen or
ordered forfeited for violation of money laundering or international
anti-terrorism laws.
2] Court Declaration :
No records exist to suggest that subject is
or was the subject of any formal or informal allegations, prosecutions or other
official proceeding for making any prohibited payments or other improper
payments to government officials for engaging in prohibited transactions or
with designated parties.
3] Asset Declaration :
No records exist to suggest that the property or assets of the subject
are derived from criminal conduct or a prohibited transaction.
4] Record on Financial
Crime :
Charges or conviction
registered against subject: None
5] Records on Violation of
Anti-Corruption Laws :
Charges or
investigation registered against subject: None
6] Records on Int’l
Anti-Money Laundering Laws/Standards :
Charges or
investigation registered against subject: None
7] Criminal Records
No
available information exist that suggest that subject or any of its principals
have been formally charged or convicted by a competent governmental authority
for any financial crime or under any formal investigation by a competent government
authority for any violation of anti-corruption laws or international anti-money
laundering laws or standard.
8] Affiliation with
Government :
No record
exists to suggest that any director or indirect owners, controlling shareholders,
director, officer or employee of the company is a government official or a
family member or close business associate of a Government official.
9] Compensation Package :
Our market
survey revealed that the amount of compensation sought by the subject is fair
and reasonable and comparable to compensation paid to others for similar
services.
10] Press Report :
No press reports / filings exists on
the subject.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
MIRA INFORM as part of its Due Diligence do provide comments on
Corporate Governance to identify management and governance. These factors often
have been predictive and in some cases have created vulnerabilities to credit
deterioration.
Our Governance Assessment focuses principally on the interactions
between a company’s management, its Board of Directors, Shareholders and other
financial stakeholders.
CONTRAVENTION
Subject is not known to have contravened any existing local laws,
regulations or policies that prohibit, restrict or otherwise affect the terms
and conditions that could be included in the agreement with the subject.
FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES
|
Currency |
Unit
|
Indian Rupees |
|
US Dollar |
1 |
Rs.60.22 |
|
|
1 |
Rs.102.79 |
|
Euro |
1 |
Rs.81.95 |
INFORMATION DETAILS
|
Analysis Done by
: |
DIV |
|
|
|
|
Report Prepared
by : |
MRI |
SCORE & RATING EXPLANATIONS
|
SCORE FACTORS |
RANGE |
POINTS |
|
HISTORY |
1~10 |
2 |
|
PAID-UP CAPITAL |
1~10 |
2 |
|
OPERATING SCALE |
1~10 |
2 |
|
FINANCIAL CONDITION |
|
|
|
--BUSINESS SCALE |
1~10 |
2 |
|
--PROFITABILIRY |
1~10 |
-- |
|
--LIQUIDITY |
1~10 |
2 |
|
--LEVERAGE |
1~10 |
2 |
|
--RESERVES |
1~10 |
-- |
|
--CREDIT LINES |
1~10 |
-- |
|
--MARGINS |
-5~5 |
-- |
|
DEMERIT POINTS |
|
|
|
--BANK CHARGES |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
--LITIGATION |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
--OTHER ADVERSE INFORMATION |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
MERIT POINTS |
|
|
|
--SOLE DISTRIBUTORSHIP |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
--EXPORT ACTIVITIES |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
--AFFILIATION |
YES/NO |
YES |
|
--LISTED |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
--OTHER MERIT FACTORS |
YES/NO |
YES |
|
DEFAULTER |
|
|
|
--RBI |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
--EPF |
YES/NO |
NO |
|
TOTAL |
|
12 |
This score serves as a reference to assess SC’s credit risk
and to set the amount of credit to be extended. It is calculated from a composite
of weighted scores obtained from each of the major sections of this report. The
assessed factors and their relative weights (as indicated through %) are as
follows:
Financial
condition (40%) Ownership
background (20%) Payment
record (10%)
Credit history
(10%) Market trend
(10%) Operational
size (10%)
RATING EXPLANATIONS
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
>86 |
Aaa |
Possesses an extremely sound financial base with the strongest capability for timely payment of interest and principal sums |
Unlimited |
|
71-85 |
Aa |
Possesses adequate working capital. No caution needed for credit transaction. It has above average (strong) capability for payment of interest and principal sums |
Large |
|
56-70 |
A |
Financial & operational base are regarded healthy. General unfavourable factors will not cause fatal effect. Satisfactory capability for payment of interest and principal sums |
Fairly Large |
|
41-55 |
Ba |
Overall operation is considered normal. Capable to meet normal commitments. |
Satisfactory |
|
26-40 |
B |
Capability to overcome financial difficulties seems comparatively
below average. |
Small |
|
11-25 |
Ca |
Adverse factors are apparent. Repayment of interest and principal sums
in default or expected to be in default upon maturity |
Limited with
full security |
|
<10 |
C |
Absolute credit risk exists. Caution needed to be exercised |
Credit not
recommended |
|
-- |
NB |
New Business |
-- |
This report is issued at your request without any
risk and responsibility on the part of MIRA INFORM PRIVATE LIMITED (MIPL)
or its officials.