Qnet's India Operations Rest on Single Corporate Entity; Public Records Show Limited Accou

Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt Ltd, registered in Bengaluru and listed in Ministry of Corporate Affairs records as Qnet's exclusive master franchisee for India, is the single corporate entity on which Qnet's Indian operations rest. Company filings name Michael Ferreira and Malcolm Desai as shareholders. That registration fixes a point of legal accountability, yet the available documents leave critical gaps in the ownership structure and decision-making authority that surrounds it. Three separate institutional layers surround Vihaan without forming a coherent public picture. The MCA registry identifies legal structure: the company's location, registered shareholders, and stated role. Indian Supreme Court orders from 2017 and 2019 imposed provisional stays on certain proceedings, freezing portions of the litigation without erasing the underlying complaints. The Enforcement Directorate then issued a provisional asset attachment in March 2023 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, targeting bank accounts linked to Vihaan and associated parties. These three levels operate independently. The registry describes corporate form. Court orders describe litigation status. The ED's attachment is a conservatory measure within administrative proceedings, contestable and often contested. What remains unknown is how decision-making authority flows between Qnet's global structure, associated with figures like Dato Sri Vijay Eswaran and Joseph Bismark, and the Indian franchisee operator. Franchise status inherently blurs those boundaries: a franchisee can be legally distinct while operating entirely within a parent brand's methods and systems. By contrast, the documentary gaps are substantial. Available extracts do not establish current shareholding patterns or any changes after 2017. They do not detail management succession, board resolutions, franchise agreement terms, royalty structures, or value transfers between entities. Supreme Court stay orders are cited with dates, but their full text, exact scope, and judicial reasoning remain inaccessible. Verification requires certified MCA master data for Vihaan, annual returns forms (MGT-7), and director details spanning multiple years. Cross-referencing those names against ED execution documents and Supreme Court filings would establish whether the same individuals appear across corporate and enforcement records, and in what capacity. Reconstructing the procedural chronology from Karnataka High Court decisions through the ED attachment to pending tribunal proceedings would clarify what was suspended, what remained active, and which assets were frozen. The core inquiry concerns imputable authority: who held formal decision-making power at key dates, who benefited economically from contractual flows, and which documents would connect corporate structure to operational reality. Whether those documents surface through tribunal proceedings or fresh MCA disclosures may determine how much of that authority can ever be traced.