G-TEC JAINX EDUCATION MD, chairman, board of directors and AGM

• Tax disputeAshish Arun sutarSince 5 Oct 2015
  IN PROCESS
  At the filing before: Plaintiff had entered into a Franchise Agreement with “M/s Samarth Enterprises” dated 01.09.2011 as the Defendant was desirous of conducting specialized computer software and hardware training programmes under the brand name of ‘Keerti Computer Institute’ at Vikhroli (West) for 3 year, for which Defendant has to pay 15% as Royalty & service Tax termed as ‘Recurring Franchisee Fees’ on the same and defended could not enter into or carry on same business during and 2 year after the term of the Agreement. The Plaintiff states that it was unequivocally agreed between defendant and plaintiff that each shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the Franchisee Agreement Further, the Plaintiff states that defendant in contravention of the Agreement not only defaulted in remitting the Recurring Franchisee Fees but also blatantly failed to make payment of the said fees in a timely manner. However, pursuant to continuing default to pay outstanding 203 Plaintiff Defendants Facts of the case Claim Amount Court Status Recurring Franchisee fees to Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was constrained to send Two demand notices demanding an amount of Rs. 2,47,695/- from defendant on 5th October, 2015 and 17th November, 2015 respectively. Defendant has given reply vide notice dated 17th November, 2015 and denied to accept the liability for 2,47,695. And Defendant has started operating from the same premises and providing services as that of plaintiff under the name and brand of Viddya Computer Institute. Therefore, now plaintiff has initiated legal action against the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,74,941/- towards the amount due and payable. Plaintiff has prayed to the Hon’ble court for interest @12% p.a on the said sum of Rs. 2,47,695/- till payment.MoreLess
• Tax disputeManoj YadavSince 5 Oct 2015
  SUMMENS FOR JUDGEMENT HEARING
  At the filing before: To pay defaulted outstanding dues/ royalty
• Tax disputeAshish Arun SutarSince 5 Oct 2015
  SUMMENS FOR JUDGEMENT HEARING
  At the filing before: Plaintiff had entered into a Franchise Agreement with “M/s Samarth Infotech” Dated 01.12.2013 as the Defendant was desirous of conducting specialized computer software and hardware training programmes under the brand name of ‘Keerti Computer Institute’) at Kalyan (West) for 3 year, for which Defendant agreed to pay 15% as Royalty & service Tax termed as ‘Recurring Franchisee Fees’ on the same and defended could not enter into or carry on same business during and 2 year after the term of the Agreement. The Plaintiff states that it was unequivocally agreed between defendant and plaintiff that each shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the Franchisee Agreement Further, the Plaintiff states that defendant in contravention of the Agreement not only defaulted in remitting the Recurring Franchisee Fees 202 Plaintiff Defendants Facts of the case Claim Amount Court Status but also blatantly failed to make payment of the said fees in a timely manner. However, pursuant to continuing default to pay outstanding Recurring Franchisee fees , the Plaintiff was constrained to send Two demand notices demanding an amount of Rs. 78,695/- from defendant on 5th October, 2015 and 23rd November, 2015. Defendant has given reply vide notice dated 23rd November,2015 and denied to accept the liability for Rs. 78,695. And Defendant has started operating from the same premises and providing services as that of plaintiff under the name and brand of Viddya Computer Institute. Therefore, now plaintiff has initiated legal action against the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 87,351/- towards the amount due and payable. Plaintiff has prayed to the Hon’ble Court for interest @12% p.a on the said sum of Rs. 78,695/- till payment.MoreLess
• Tax disputeAshish Arun SutarSince 5 Oct 2015
  CHAMBER SUMMONS FOR REPLY
  At the filing before: Plaintiff had entered into a Franchise Agreement with “M/s Samarth Enterprises” dated 01.09.2011 as the Defendant was desirous of conducting specialized computer software and hardware training programmes under the brand name of ‘Keerti Computer Institute’ at Vikhroli (West) for 3 year, for which Defendant has to pay 15% as Royalty & service Tax termed as ‘Recurring Franchisee Fees’ on the same and defended could not enter into or carry on same business during and 2 year after the term of the Agreement. The Plaintiff states that it was unequivocally agreed between defendant and plaintiff that each shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the Franchisee Agreement Further, the Plaintiff states that defendant in contravention of the Agreement not only defaulted in remitting the Recurring Franchisee Fees but also blatantly failed to make payment of the said fees in a timely manner. However, pursuant to continuing default to pay outstanding 203 Plaintiff Defendants Facts of the case Claim Amount Court Status Recurring Franchisee fees to Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was constrained to send Two demand notices demanding an amount of Rs. 2,47,695/- from defendant on 5th October, 2015 and 17th November, 2015 respectively. Defendant has given reply vide notice dated 17th November, 2015 and denied to accept the liability for 2,47,695. And Defendant has started operating from the same premises and providing services as that of plaintiff under the name and brand of Viddya Computer Institute. Therefore, now plaintiff has initiated legal action against the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,74,941/- towards the amount due and payable. Plaintiff has prayed to the Hon’ble court for interest @12% p.a on the said sum of Rs. 2,47,695/- till payment.MoreLess

In the company's own words, from its latest governance filing.

The board is made up as the listing rules require

Yes

The board has a regular chairperson

Yes

The company has a risk management committee

No

The chair is related to the managing director

No

The filing has a part on fines and penalties

No

The filing has a part on tax disputes

Yes

There was a cyber security incident in the quarter

No

The company's own answers in its filing.