Talk:MS Shoes/Archives/2014

MS Shoes East Ltd.

Hello,

I have tried to find the link/reference V S Bhim (July 1, 2009). "Capital Market price rate interest - 10% nation product RAO interest charge _2% per annum". Citeman Network. I enquired from the Citeman network, they have confirmed the deletion of the said reference being inaccurate. The details in the article referring to Citeman are required to be reviewed. Thus the reference V S Bhim (July 1, 2009). "Capital Market price rate interest - 10% nation product RAO interest charge _2% per annum". Citeman Network may be considered to be deleted.

Pleasethanks (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry - the link to the archived version of the article works. Please see WP:LINKROT for more information about this. But since more references cannot hurt, I'm adding a couple of other independent sources that verify the information. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 11:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

MS SHOES

Hello Sir,

Please add the reference below in the last part of the article :- The company has decree of the 5-star hotel project in its favour.( http://www.business-standard.com/article/special/drt-likely-to-auction-ms-shoes-properties-198061201046

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasethanks (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

But there is no reliable source to show this, just an unverified claim by the company in the form of a letter to a newspaper. A decree is, in this context, presumably a court order rather than a rule of law issued by the president, and I assume that the phrase means that a court has ruled in favour of MS Shoes; who was the other party? Which court made the ruling, and when?

Finally, what is your connection to the company? --bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ms Shoes

Sir,

Article has been written by a business competitor for his gain, it has been vandalism against the company. The company's case against the underwriters to the public issue of 1995 have been won. The judgements against the underwriters have been passed in 2013 and 2014, the links can be provided. Thus, all the allegations are outdated and does not carry the current information. The hotel property has been ruled in the company's name by trial court(reply to your question) (court link can be provided) against Hudco(reply to your question) by declaring the cancellation as null and void. The judgement was passed on 3rd July 2010 in favor of the company in respect of the 5 star hotel (reply to your question). My connection with the company is that I am Cmd of the company (reply to your question). The three references provided of Business Standard were clarified to them giving the current information by providing documents and proof. All the allegations in the referred case of 1995 stands closed. The current information was being provided to stop the vandalism by the business competitors. Pleasethanks (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Best Regards Pleasethanks (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasethanks (talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The information in the article is outdated and does not provide correct information

Sir,

The article is required to be edited since the information in the whole article is of 1995 period and the subsequent developments have not been reported in the said article. The article is biased and defamatory since the information provided is completed outdated. The article is required to be edited with the current information as well as the developments that took place between the period 1998 till 2014 or the article is required to be deleted. Pleasethanks (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)