B.K.GUPTA AND CO. vs NORTH INDIA DISTILLERY LTD.

THE applicant has filed a compensation application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act). THE brief facts as incorporated in paragraphs 1 to 6 of this application may be reproduced : "(1) THE applicant B.K. Gupta and Co. is a partnership firm and were carrying on business of Wholesale Liquor and were the Wholesellers of premium brand of Whisky manufactured by Khoday Distilleries Ltd. of Bangalore. THE applicant has since 1989 has discontinued the business of liquor and has shifted to Noida in 1990 because of disturbed condition in Punjab as Ferozpur was infested with the militants. (2) North India Distilleries Ltd. is a sister concern of Khoday Distilleries Ltd., Bangalore. THE applicant was appointed wholesale dealers of Khoday Distilleries for sale of Peter Scot and Red Night Whisky etc. for Ferozpur District of Punjab. (3) Khoday Distilleries floated a new Company under the name and style of North India Distilleries Ltd. in order to manufacture Whisky''s and the applicant were induced/allured by the Company on the pretext that the Company will manufacture good quality of Whisky which will have ready market and the applicant will be appointed wholeseller for those brands of Whisky produced by the respondent. (4) THE applicant was asked to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs with the respondent in order to secure the dealership of the respondent Company. (5) THE applicant was also given the impression by the respondent Company to the effect that the Company will start the commercial production of Whisky within a period of 2/3 years. In order to secure the dealership of the respondent the applicant feel prey to their inducement/allurement and had parted with a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as security deposit with the respondent. (6) THE applicant had paid Rs. 2 lakhs to the respondent Company as security deposit as per the detail given below : (i) THE applicant had purchased two Demand Drafts bearing No. E000344, E000345 of Rs. 50,000.00 each dated 14.11.1985 from Bank of Baroda, Ferozpur and were sent to the respondent. (ii) THE applicant had also obtained an another draft bearing No. A0006256 for Rs. 1 lakh dated 4.12.1985 from Bank of Baroda, Ferozpur and were also sent to the respondent Company. (iii) THE drafts were actually received and encashed by the respondent Company."

FURTHER it has been submitted in paragraph 7 that the respondent failed to commence commercial production of whisky and question of supply to the applicant did not arise. I have heard authorised representative of the applicant. The respondent chose to remain absent and the following order was passed on 4th October, 2001 for ex parte proceedings against the respondent : "The matter was called for hearing. No one has appeared for the respondent today and no one was present on the last date of hearing. Respondent is, therefore, directed to be proceeded ex parte. The applicant shall file his evidence by way of affidavit within 4 weeks. List the matter for ex parte final arguments on 18th December, 2001."

The following order was passed on 29th January, 2001 : "It has been stated by the learned Advocate for the respondent that negotiations for an out of Court settlement are at an advanced stage and an offer of refund of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been made to the applicant and, therefore, a short adjournment may be given for clinching the out of Court settlement. As prayed, the case is adjourned to 20th February, 2001 at 10.30 a.m. for consideration and/or for directions."

The respondent, however, continued to remain absent and was not represented on 23rd April, 2001, 21st May, 2001, 20th August, 2001 and 4th October, 2001 respectively. The matter was called for hearing today and no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent again. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. Evidence by way of affidavit has also been placed on record wherein the averments made in the application are reiterated. The respondent has unauthorisedly withheld the security deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs to which the applicant is entitled to refund in law. The respondent, therefore, is guilty of the breach and violating the provisions of the MRTP Act within the meaning of Section 2(o)(ii) of the MRTP Act. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to refund of the security amount of Rs. 2 lakhs with simple interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till the date of payment with costs which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. The amounts shall be paid to the applicant within four weeks from today and respondent shall file the compliance within two weeks thereafter. C.A. disposed of.