Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The gist of the reasoning of the learned Single Judge as can be culled out from the impugned order is that though there is merit in the contention raised on behalf of the Respondent that the circumstances mentioned by the Respondent in its affidavit in reply indicating that the transaction is not a genuine transaction, according to the learned Single Judge what has been lost sight of is the fact that the said contracts have originated from the Respondent. The learned Single Judge further held that the contention that these are all fabricated and designed to reflect data matching the credit balances is farfetched. The learned Single Judge has further lgc 15 of 42 app-131.17-aw-nma-29.17&ors observed that the denial of the contracts' authenticity appears to be a feeble attempt to avoid liability and the consequences that follow. The learned Single Judge has observed that the signatures of Mr. Bothra - the deponent of the affidavit in reply which are on the contracts have not been denied. Having regard to the dispute raised by the Respondent as regards the authenticity of the e-mails the learned Single Judge was of the view that the denial appearing is bare and bereft of particulars. The learned Single Judge has observed that though on the one hand the Respondent has alleged that the contracts are fabricated and data is created to match the credit balances, but on the other hand denies having sent any e-mail as annexed by the Petitioner. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that after the affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of the Respondent, inspection of the e-mail(s) forwarding the said five contracts was taken. The copies of the said e-mails have been annexed at Exhibit-G1 and G2. The learned Single Judge has observed that apart from stating that the contracts are fabricated and that they had not sent any mail, there is no attempt on the part of the Respondent to dispute the signature or the rubber stamp appearing on the e-mails. The learned Single Judge has observed that the e-mails have originated from one Mr. Sujit/Betul Oils Ltd. whose e-mail address has been referred to by the learned Single Judge. However, according to the learned Single Judge the fact remains that the deponent has not contended that the Respondent has not communicated through M/s. Betul Oils Ltd. (the group to which the Appellant lgc 16 of 42 app-131.17-aw-nma-29.17&ors belongs) The learned Single Judge has further observed that the signatures on the attachments of the e-mails have not been disputed nor has the Respondent disputed the fact that the rubber stamp appearing on these attachments. The learned Single Judge has also adverted to the fact that the Chartered Accountants of the Company were directed to remain present along with the Director of the Respondent Company. Accordingly Mr. D Narsimhan the Director of the Respondent Company and Mr. P Bhargava of the Chartered Accountants of the Respondent Company appeared before the Court and stated that the amounts paid by the Petitioners in the said Company Petitions were shown as advances received in their account as on that date i.e. on 26/02/2015. The learned Single Judge therefore held that if the amounts paid by the Petitioners were appropriated by the Respondent towards the price of Guar Seeds ordered by the Petitioners, the amounts would not have been shown as advance as on 26/02/2015. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the Respondent has not filed any proceedings against any of the Petitioners to recover the loss alleged to have been caused on account of they being allegedly induced to purchase large quantities of Guar Seeds at the instance of the Petitioners. The learned Single Judge having regard to all the aforesaid facts prima facie found that the defence set up by the Respondent does not appear to be bonafide. The learned Single Judge has observed that having regard to the fact that the Respondent has received the amount paid over by the Petitioners coupled with the fact that the Respondent has not relied lgc 17 of 42 app-131.17-aw-nma-29.17&ors upon any evidence of having purchased any quantities of Guar Seeds pursuant to the alleged repeated orders to purchase the Guar Seeds, the defence of the Respondent was not a plausible one. The learned Single Judge therefore as indicated above deemed it appropriate to direct the Respondent to deposit in this Court the amount claimed by way of the statutory notices by the Petitioners in the above Company Petition as also the Petitioners in other companion Company Petitions. As indicated above it is the said order dated 17th/18th October 2016 which is taken exception to by way of the above Appeals.

xvii] That though it is the case of the Respondent that the Soyabean Meal contracts were received by Respondent from the Petitioners by e-mails, there is not a whisper as to how the Respondent sent the alleged Guar Seeds contract to the Petitioners or vice versa. xviii] No correspondence was entered into by the Petitioner with the Respondent in view of the fact that the talks between the Petitioners and the Respondent were in person and that the Respondent kept on giving false assurances to the Petitioners. xix] Assuming that the case of the Respondent of the contract being for purchase of Guar Seeds is believed to be true, the delivery date lgc 26 of 42 app-131.17-aw-nma-29.17&ors mentioned therein being 27/07/2012, the Respondent also did not address any correspondence for almost a year before addressing the said letter dated 15/06/2013.

14 In so far as the 5 Soyabean Meal contracts which have been received by e-mail by the Petitioner is concerned, each contract bears the signature and rubber stamp of the Respondent. Each contract identifies the quantity, rate, payment terms, delivery date. The Petitioner has given inspection of the e-mails to the Respondent. In so far as the said contracts are concerned, in the affidavit in reply though the authenticity of the e-mail is sought to be disputed the denial is bare and bereft of particulars. The same can be seen by the averments made in paragraph 20 which are reproduced herein under :-

15 In so far as the alleged Guar Seeds contracts are concerned, the Respondent has not mentioned in any pleadings as to how the said Guar Seeds contracts were sent to the Petitioners. There is no reference to any e- mail/letter/correspondence by which the said Guar Seeds contracts were sent to the Petitioners.

16 Another aspect which dents the case of the Respondent in so far as the said defence is concerned is that its Director Mr. D Narsimhan and the representative of the Chartered Accountants of the Respondent Mr. P Bhargava have admitted before this Court that the amounts paid by the Petitioners are shown as advance received in the account of the Respondent which fact has been recorded in the order dated 23/02/2015 and 27/02/2015 passed in one of the connected Company Petition being No.16 of 2014. The case of the Respondent that the Petitioners failed to make payment on account of sharp fall in price of Guar Seeds between the settlement date and the delivery date lgc 31 of 42 app-131.17-aw-nma-29.17&ors also appears to be unacceptable in view of the fact that the Petitioners made payment of Rs.6,00,00,000/- on 26/07/2011 a day prior to the delivery date. 17 In so far as e-mail dated 15/02/2012 addressed by Mr. Rajkumar Goyal to the Respondent is concerned, it is required to be noted that the said e- mail is dated 14/02/2012 whereas the alleged Guar Seeds contracts are also dated prior in point of time. A reading of the said e-mail indicates that the said e-mail is in the nature of the proposal to the Respondent that the advances can be adjusted against the Gaur Seeds. The alleged Guar Seeds contracts are all prior in point of time to the e-mail. Hence there would be no question of Mr. Rajkumar Goyal making a proposal for purchase of Guar Seeds to be adjusted with the advances provided by the Petitioner. The said e-mail therefore does not in any manner support the case of the Respondent that the amount advanced by the Petitioner was towards the purchase of Guar Seeds. The factum of supply of Guar Seeds to 5 entities which are sister concerns of the Petitioner also does not further case of the Respondent in so far as contracts being for purchase Guar Seeds and not for purchase of Soyabean Meal is concerned. The contracts relating to Guar Seeds, according to the Respondent are dated 14/01/2012 whilst the Guar Seeds are alleged to have been supplied even prior to the contract date i.e. 28/11/2011. It is only in respect of the alleged Guar Seeds contract between the Respondent and M/s. Nova Trading Pvt. Ltd. (one of the Respondents in the companion Appeals) that the contract lgc 32 of 42 app-131.17-aw-nma-29.17&ors date is prior to the delivery date. Hence the aforesaid fact also does not support the case of the Respondent that the contracts were in respect of purchase of Guar Seeds and not for purchase of Soyabean Meal. 18 Now coming to the report of the DG CCI on which much reliance was sought to be placed on behalf of the Respondent in support of its case that the contracts were in respect of supply of Guar Seeds and not for Soyabean Meal. The said report has been submitted by the DG CCI after undertaking an inquiry under Section 26 of the Competition Act 2002. The statutory scheme comprising the said Act indicates that the investigation carried out by the DG CCI is a preliminary fact finding inquiry and is not by way of quasi-judicial proceeding. In the said fact finding inquiry there is no opportunity given to the concerned parties to make submissions but only statements are recorded and material considered. In so far as the instant report of the DG CCI is concerned, reading of paragraphs 5.12.10, 5.12.11 and 5.12.14 indicate that the DG CCI's finding is solely based on the bank statements of the parties. The DG CCI did not have the benefit of the material facts which are necessary to determine the inter se disputes between the parties. In so far as the instant case is concerned, the DG CCI did not have access to the Soyabean Meal contracts bearing the signature and rubber stamp of the Respondent i.e. the Appellant herein, the e- mail through which the Respondent forwarded the Soyabean Meal contracts to the Petitioners, admissions of Mr. D Narsimhan the Director of the Respondent lgc 33 of 42 app-131.17-aw-nma-29.17&ors and, Mr. P Bhargava the representative of the Chartered Accountants of the Respondent wherein they have stated that the amount paid by the Petitioner was shown as advance in the account of the Respondent. The DG CCI cannot be said to be conducting any inquiry as regards the inter se disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent but was only conducting the inquiry into whether there was any monopolistic activities being carried out in the sale of Guar Seeds.