Law Week

MBA CHAI WALA also in hot water along with Dr Bindra (Sec 18 ICA 1872).

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Aayush Tiwari –

MBA Chai Wala franchise scam possibility although got eclipsed under Vivek Bindra Sandeep Maheshwari duel but more or less the barrage of allegations on both Dr Bindra and Prafull Billore ( MBA Chai Wala) shoot towards one direction.

Prafull Billore must be exhaling with releif as the focus of the entire youtube community is diverted these days in #stopvivekbindra campaign but if he is also proved wrong in future the “poetic justice” equisitely articulated by William Shakespeare in Macbeth must not be forgotten.

“Bloody instructions being taught,
Return to plague the inventor.
THE EVEN HANDED JUSTICE, commands the ingridients of our poisoned chalice,
To our own lips”

This is to remind all that Dr Vivek Bindra is not the only one facing the allegations. Prafull Billore, who had also been a guest of both Sandeep Maheshwari and Vivek Bindra is not away from the perils as well. This is to remind yoh thag recently Dr Vivek Bindra had taken a stand for MBA Chai Wala for being falsely accused under the ponzi scheme when this Sandeep Maheshwari vs Bada Business war had not marked it’s inception.

Apparent it is on youtube that there is a huge community of youtubers who have stood against the overpriced franchies of MBA Chai Wala and the victims who are in thousands are revolting. As per the sources Prafull has sold is Franchises on rates as high as 5 lakhs INR to more than we can imagine.

Dr Vivek Bindra still is accused for charging amounts over Fifty Thousand but Prafull Billore has declared by just selling his company’s name for such over priced promises.

The wave of rebels was spreading like a forest fire before Sandeep Maheshwari vs Vivek Bindra war outbroke. Whether the people climbing damages under this scheme are right or wrong might be settled in near future but the position of law is clear on these kind of cases.

The explanation 2 of the section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 explicitly prescribes that mere inadequacy of consideration does not make a contract void but it can be considered by the courts in order to determine the free consent of the promisor. If this section is read along with Misrepresentation (DEFINITION UNDER SECTION 18:-
Causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement. In simple words, an innocent or any false statement made by one party to another party to make a contract is known as misrepresentation) then beyond any reasonable doubt, both these preeminent youtubers cum celebrities may get into the hot legal water.





Prafull Billore

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button