CASE REF #5509082  ·  EXHIBITS 1–5

What this account rests on.

Every claim on this site traces back to one of five exhibits. Here is what each one is, what it establishes, and why some of it stays offline.

The register

Exhibits

Deliberate omissions

What we have not published, and why

We hold all five exhibits in full and have produced them to the Commission. We have not put the underlying files on this website. That is a decision, not an oversight:

No chat screenshots

The WhatsApp exports contain the personal mobile numbers of individual employees. Publishing them would expose people who are not the subject of this dispute to contact we cannot control.

No bank or payment images

The payment records carry account numbers and transaction identifiers belonging to our family and to third parties. There is no version of publishing them that is safe.

No individual staff names

Our complaint is against the company. Naming the junior staff who were rotated onto a badly managed file would target the wrong people.

No documents relating to our father's estate

The underlying matter is a family death and an inheritance. The details of the estate itself are nobody else's business and are not needed to understand what went wrong.

Available on legitimate request

The complete exhibits have been filed with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane. We will also produce them, in unredacted form, to VakilSearch or Zolvit, to their legal representatives, to a consumer regulator, or to a journalist verifying this account. Write to noble@mavely.in.

Standard applied

The test each claim had to pass

Before a sentence went onto this site, it had to be one of three things:

  1. A fact in a document — a date, an amount, a name of an entity, a line in a brief. Reproduced as it appears.
  2. A verbatim quotation — words a VakilSearch staff member actually sent us, copied exactly and marked as a quote.
  3. A description of an absence — that no update arrived between two dates, that a document was not produced, that no refund has been received. These are the easiest claims for VakilSearch to rebut if we are wrong, and we would publish the rebuttal.

Anything that was only an inference about someone's motives did not make it onto the page. That is why this site describes a ten-month failure to deliver and does not use words like "fraud" or "scam" — those are conclusions for the Commission, not for us.