Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

T. After giving credit for the sums paid by the distributors, the sum of Rs. 28,25,48,558/- became payable from the distributor no.1 and Rs. 2,58,68,781/- payable by the distributor no. 2. The decree sought in both the plaints further includes the interest payable on the above dues till March 5, 2019.

4. Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs in both the suits has placed the documents that specifically highlighted the alleged fraud committed by the distributors and the employee. He put specific reliance on the emails exchanged between the employee and the distributors from 2014 to 2017 and indicated that each contained a chart which specifically stated the amount of rebate that the distributors were entitled to, the amount actually given to the distributors and the difference between the two. He submitted that these emails had been obtained from the computer of the employee by forensic examination carried out by experts. He, thereafter, highlighted the contents of the reports given by KPMG and BDO, the first highlighting the modus operandi and the second quantifying the exact excess rebate/credit received by the distributors based on the collusion and fraud of the distributors and the employee. He, thereafter, submitted that the price circulars were regularly issued by the plaintiff to all its distributors and was well known to all of them, as the entire basis for granting rebates/credit and thereafter making payments, was based on the said price circulars. He submitted that any plea stating contrary to the factual aspect that the distributors were not aware of the price circulars is absurd, unbelievable and ludicrous. Mr. Mookherjee, thereafter placed the documents with regard to the admissions made by the defendants as also their willingness to refund certain amounts. Mr. Mookherjee indicated that payments were made by the distributors on an ad hoc basis and the same amounted to a further admission on their part that excess credit had been obtained by them. He also placed the subsequent retraction by the distributor no. 1 and submitted that the retraction was an afterthought and contained preposterous statements such as the distributor no. 2 was not aware of the price circulars. He further submitted that the distributor no. 2 was evasive and had no explanation with regard to the minutes and excess credit statement emailed to him on November 17, 2017. He further relied upon the balance confirmations that were issued by the petitioner that were never disputed by the distributors. Mr. Mookherjee thereafter placed the list of immovable properties owned by the distributor no. 1 (Annexure 'DD' in G.A. No. 725 of 2019) and the distributor no. 2 (Annexure 'R' in G.A. No. 733 of 2019).