Political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee has come under scrutiny following revelations in its financial disclosures related to a large unsecured loan. According to filings made for the financial year two thousand twenty one, the organisation reported receiving a loan of rupees thirteen point five crore from a company stated to be based in Rohtak district of Haryana. However, official public records indicate that the lending firm had ceased to exist several years before the loan was reportedly extended.
In its disclosures, the consultancy named the lender as Ramasetu Infrastructure India Private Limited. A review of data available with the Registrar of Companies, which operates under the central government, shows that no company with that exact name is listed as active or operational. The only closely matching entity found in official records is Ramsetu Infrastructure India Private Limited, a similarly named company with a different spelling.
Corporate data accessed through public databases shows that Ramsetu Infrastructure India Private Limited was incorporated on December eighteen two thousand thirteen. The company was registered as a non government private entity and was engaged in real estate related activities. Its authorised share capital was listed as rupees five lakh. At the time of incorporation, the company had two directors named Vijendar and Vikram. Both individuals were appointed on October eighteen two thousand thirteen.
Further examination of regulatory records shows that the company did not remain operational for long. On August eighteen two thousand eighteen, Ramsetu Infrastructure India Private Limited was struck off by the Registrar of Companies under Section two four eight subsection one of the Companies Act two thousand thirteen. A strike off under this provision usually occurs when a company fails to commence business or discontinues operations for two consecutive financial years and does not meet statutory compliance obligations.
Despite this status, the political consultancy’s financial statements claim that it received an unsecured loan from the firm in two thousand twenty one. This places the transaction nearly three years after the company had been formally removed from the official registry. The timing of the loan has raised questions about how funds could have been advanced by an entity that no longer existed as a legal corporate body.
Attempts to verify the identity of the lender through contact details available online produced further uncertainty. When a phone number associated with Ramsetu Infrastructure India Private Limited was contacted, the person who answered identified himself as Mukesh. He stated that he was from Yamuna Nagar in Haryana and denied any connection with the company. He also said he was unaware of why his phone number was listed as a contact for the firm.
Public records also suggest that a company with a similar name once operated from the address mentioned in the consultancy’s disclosures. However, that firm had already been struck off years before the loan was said to have been issued. Individuals whose names appeared earlier as shareholders or directors of the dissolved company have reportedly denied any link with the consultancy. They also denied providing any loan or financial assistance to the organisation.
Financial statements further indicate that the consultancy has repaid a portion of the rupees thirteen point five crore loan over recent accounting periods. A significant amount of the loan remains outstanding. While the repayment details are mentioned in filings, there has been no public clarification regarding the exact identity of the lending entity or its legal and operational status at the time the loan was received.
The absence of a clear explanation has intensified scrutiny of the organisation’s disclosures. Analysts and observers have pointed to discrepancies between the consultancy’s filings and official corporate records. Questions have been raised about the source of the funds and whether due diligence was followed while recording the transaction. As of now, the consultancy has not issued a detailed statement addressing these inconsistencies or explaining how the loan was obtained from a company that had been struck off years earlier.
The matter is now under examination, with attention focused on the accuracy of financial reporting and compliance with regulatory requirements. Authorities may seek further clarification to determine whether the disclosures accurately reflect the underlying transaction and whether any violations of corporate or financial norms have occurred.
