Posts

Showing posts with the label #ajay_piramal_alleged_insider_trader

The Sovereign Insider: A Philosophical Indictment of Corporate Immunity in India — An Open Letter to Ajay Piramal

Image
  The Sovereign Insider: A Philosophical Indictment of Corporate Immunity in India — An Open Letter to Ajay Piramal Posted on 24th November, 2025 (GMT 06:57 hrs) ABSTRACT This open letter to Mr. Ajay Piramal is a philosophical indictment of the structural immunity enjoyed by India’s most privileged corporate actors, written from the vantage point of the outsider — the figure who stands scorched at the margins while power glides in the cool interior of impunity. Drawing on Camus, Kafka, Agamben, Śūdraka, and Brecht, the letter argues that the DHFL debacle and a string of insider-trading controversies reveal not isolated breaches but a systemic architecture in which political patronage, regulatory indulgence, and judicial hesitation combine to create a sovereign exception for the well-connected. Through satire, allegory, and critical theory, the narrative exposes how legality becomes porous, accountability becomes theatrical, and “honour” becomes a performative mask concealing a...

Justice via Intimidation? A Financially Abused Citizen vs. the Corporate-State Nexus

Image
  Justice via Intimidation? A Financially Abused Citizen vs. the Corporate-State Nexus Response/Statement from a DHFL Victim Harassed by Mr. Piramal’s Legal Machinery,  Intended as an Open Communication (as expected in democracy) to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court  Regarding Case Number S/42/2025 (and connected matters). Posted on 30th June, 2025 (GMT 23:01 hrs) ABSTRACT The author of this open communication to the Hon’ble Bombay High is a victim of the DHFL financial scandal. He reports receiving a Bombay High Court suit (No. 42 of March 17, 2025) unusually via the Mumbai Sheriff, which contained identity errors, redundant or blank pages, and a mere five‑day response window, compared to the 90 days apparently allotted to corporate plaintiff Mr. Ajay Piramal. He argues that this situation appears to constitute legal intimidation by a powerful corporate‑state nexus that has left him impoverished and unable to secure counsel within such a short temporal window. He highli...