HoneyVeda Responds to Misleading Social Media Claims by Former Contractor Mayank Singh

A factual rebuttal of claims made on X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn by Mayank Singh (@mynkdzgn)

Check this for additional proof: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15P04Qr80AO4bTKI-f7yUGzVHFRLX00vy?usp=sharing

Ahmedabad, 9 March 2026 — HoneyVeda makes honey the way children want the world to be – cruelty-free and fun. Born in 2019 from a beekeeper’s obsession with doing things right, we started with ₹32 lakhs turnover and a handful of bee boxes. Today, with 75,000+ happy customers and crossing ₹4.5 crore turnover in 2025–26, we are proof that honest products find their people. Every jar is raw, gravity-filtered, and traced from a single floral origin which are fennel, lychee, jamun, Himalayan forest, and more across seven Indian states. No shortcuts. No adulterants. Just pure monofloral honey, because real honey deserves to be tasted, not just trusted.

Customers can check our brand on: https://honeyveda.in/

HoneyVeda has become aware of posts published on X and LinkedIn by Mayank Singh (@mynkdzgn) on or around 8–9 March 2026, making several claims about his engagement with our company between June and September 2025. We have reviewed those claims against contemporaneous documentary evidence in our possession including bank transfer records, email correspondence, and WhatsApp communication logs. The claims are either factually incorrect, materially incomplete, or directly contradicted by this evidence. We issue this statement to place the facts on record.

1. What Was Contracted and Paid - No 50% upfront, 50% after delivery

Mr. Singh has claimed the engagement was structured as “50% upfront, 50% after delivery.” This is not supported by any documented payment arrangement. Invoice No. 0008, dated 14 July 2025, was issued by Mr. Singh himself for a single line item: “3D Modelling - 250g Jar” at INR 20,000. HoneyVeda paid this invoice in full on 30 July 2025 via bank transfer (Reference: 101877XXXXXX; Debit Account: Harisons Venture Private Limited; Beneficiary: MXXX SXXX, HDFC Bank). Mr. Singh confirmed receipt in writing the same day.

No instalment structure was documented. No “remaining 50%” exists under any agreed payment arrangement for Invoice 0008. HoneyVeda paid 100% of what was invoiced.

Critically, in the video now circulating on social media, the payment amount of INR 20,000 has been deliberately obscured (beeped out), creating a false impression that Mr. Singh worked without any compensation. This is factually untrue.

2. The Disputed Invoice and Why It Was Not Accepted

Misrepresentation of design capabilities: A Digital Calliper Is a Basic Necessity in the Packaging Industry — We Ship Over 1.5 Lakh Boxes Every Year

A second invoice (Invoice No. 0013, for INR 42,000) was submitted by Mr. Singh on 18 August 2025, covering additional work including gift box modelling and remaining jar variants. This invoice was not accepted by HoneyVeda because the deliverables under it did not meet the technical specifications required for production use.

Specifically, during the early phases of the project, Mr. Singh did not use a digital caliper for measurements which is a basic professional standard for anyone creating dimensionally accurate 3D models for commercial packaging. He acknowledged in writing that he had relied on a regular scale instead, producing imprecise dimensions. While Mr. Singh did subsequently obtain a caliper following our team’s guidance, and the 500g bottle model was confirmed as accurate at that stage, the cumulative impact of the earlier imprecision on project timelines and the quality of other deliverables (including gift box models with structural issues such as incorrect spine widths, material inaccuracies, and missing details) meant that the overall output remained below the standard required.

Currently, HoneyVeda ships approximately 1.5 lakh boxes annually. Dimensional accuracy in our 3D models is not an aesthetic preference but it is a commercial necessity that affects label alignment, production workflows, and brand presentation across multiple SKUs. The insistence on proper tooling and technical precision was a reasonable minimum standard.

3. HoneyVeda has not used any of Mr. Singh’s work, not on our website, not in our packaging, and not in any marketing material

The work was incomplete, and no final production ready deliverables were received. The advance of INR 20,000 fairly compensated the work that was completed up to the point of termination. In other words, we did not used any part of Mr Singh’s work, not even the part for which we paid INR 20,000. Which is eventually a waste of our resources and most importantly the time.

4. How the Engagement Ended

From 21 August 2025 onward, Mr. Singh made repeated follow-up requests for payment of Invoice 0013. HoneyVeda’s position was that the deliverables under that invoice had not met the agreed specifications. Communication became strained on both sides. On 1 September 2025, after a series of voice calls, our team member Vivek Rajoria formally ended the working relationship. Mr. Singh’s account omits the context of repeated back-and-forth over quality issues and timelines that preceded this decision.

5. The Call Incident and the Circulating Video

Mr. Singh has claimed that HoneyVeda accidentally added him to an internal SEO strategy call, that the CEO “instantly left” when he raised the payment dispute, and that a team member abused him.

The facts are as follows: Mr. Singh was added to an internal business call by mistake. Rather than identifying himself and leaving which would have been the professional course of action, he chose to remain on the call and use it as an opportunity to press a disputed financial claim.

At that point in the meeting, the CEO stepped away to attend a call from the individual for whom the meeting had originally been scheduled. The claim that the CEO stepped away to avoid Mr. Singh is factually incorrect.

6. Our Employee’s Conduct: Accountability

As CEO, I want to state clearly: the language used by our team member during this call was wrong, and it does not reflect the values we have built at HoneyVeda. We are a company that started from scratch with a commitment to how we treat people i.e. vendors, customers, or collaborators and that is not something we compromise on, regardless of the circumstances.

I personally do not endorse such conduct, and I am deeply uncomfortable that it occurred under our company’s name. Appropriate action will be taken in accordance with company policy, following due process. We will not allow a contractual disagreement, however contested, to become a justification for behaviour that falls below the standards we hold ourselves to.

Closing Statement

HoneyVeda is a startup. We deeply respect the freelancer community and have worked with several freelancers over the course of building our brand. This is an isolated contractual disagreement that has been amplified on social media without full verification of the underlying facts.

We are willing to share the complete documentary trail which includes bank transfer confirmations, email threads, and WhatsApp communication records with any journalist, reputed platform, or official bodies that wishes to examine them.

We trust that the media and the public will form their assessment based on documented facts, not on a selectively edited video.

We would also like to thank the many members of our community, partners, and well-wishers who have reached out to seek clarity and who have continued to place their trust in us. Your support and willingness to understand the full context mean a great deal to our team.