Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In order to identify the gross discrepancies in the accounts and the fraud that had been the perpetrated by the respondents in both the appeals the appellant had appointed BDO India LLP ("BDO") on October 10, 2018 to conduct a forensic audit of the appellant for the purpose of computation of excess rebates that had been given. The report of BDO dated February 4, 2019, inter alia, shows-

i) Several emails were sent by SKS to Krishnendu with attached MS Excel workbooks showing calculations of the excess rebates given.

The appellant filed two suits for recovery of money both on March 5, 2019.

In the said proceeding, the appellant has filed an application for injunction and attachment of certain immovable properties of the respondents.

The documents that explicitly showed the alleged fraud committed by the distributors and the employee were put forward by Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in both the actions. Mr. Banerjee has relied upon the emails exchanged between the employee and the distributors from 2014 to 2017 as evidence, claiming that each had an excel sheet detailing the amount of rebate the distributors were due to receive, the amount actually paid to the distributors and the difference between the two. These emails were discovered from the employee's computer through forensic examination by experts. Following that, Mr. Banerjee outlined the contents of the KPMG and BDO reports, the first identifying the modus operandi and the second estimating the precise excess rebate/credit earned by the distributors as a result of the distributors' collaboration and fraud with the employee. It is submitted that the plaintiff distributed price circulars to all its distributors on a regular basis, and that they were all aware of such circulars and thereafter payments were made on such price circulars. Any claim that the distributors were unaware of the pricing circulars was not true. Our attention is drawn to the documents pertaining to the defendants' confessions as well as their readiness to return specified amounts. The distributors made payments on an ad hoc basis, which amounted to a further acknowledgment by them of their admission of liability and refund of amounts received in excess of their entitlement. Mr. Banerjee submits the retraction of the respondents is a clear afterthought and contained false assertions with regard to lack of knowledge of pricing circulars.