Dileep Padgaonkar vs State N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors on 9 March, 2016

2. Vide the impugned order learned Trial Court had issued the
summons to accused Nos.1 to 15 including the petitioners herein for the
offences punishable under Sections 499/500/501/502/34 of the IPC.
However, summons were not issued against 16th accused, i.e., Times News

3. Since the facts of all these three petitions are common and the same
are directed against summoning order dated 26.06.2007 arising out of a
complaint filed by respondent No.2, therefore, this Court has decided to
dispose of these petitions by a common judgment.

4. The allegations in narrow compass as contained in the complaint
filed before learned Trial Court against petitioners are that the respondent

Crl.M.C. Nos.1320/2013,5124/2013 & 4183/2014 Page 2 of 30
No.2 had a long business relationship with accused No.1, i.e., M/s Bennett
Coleman & Company Limited and advertisements had been placed in
accused persons’ newspaper for the last nearly 8 years. Until recently, the
complainant had been advertising heavily in the accused newspaper
intimating the general public about the timing of tests, the success rates of
its students etc. For the period 2000 to 2001, advertisements worth
Rs.1,01,49,143/- and for the period 2001-2002 advertisements worth
Rs.59,56,092/- had been placed in the accused newspaper. At the present
rate of advertisement tariffs in the accused persons newspaper it works out
to about Rs.2.15 Crores. The accused have, therefore, benefited
economically and financially in their association with the complainant. For
the calendar year commencing from 2002 the complainant had commenced
negotiations with the accused No.1 towards seeking a discount in the
advertisement rates, which is a normal practice in the trade of bulk booking
of advertisements in newspapers. The negotiations were held particularly
with Mr.R.Ricky, Mr.Daruman and Mr.Alok Mathur, the accused Nos.13
to 15 respectively from the marketing department. The complainant was
represented by one of its senior officers Mr.Annu Kundlu in such
negotiations. In this regard, the accused Nos.14 & 15 visited the office of
the complainant in January 2002 for such negotiations. At all times during
the negotiations it was impressed upon the complainant by the above
referred persons that as the complainant was a big advertiser, any final
decision relating to the tariffs for advertisement would only be taken by the
Chairperson and the Managing Director, accused Nos.2 & 5 respectively
and after consultations with accused Nos.3, 4 & 6 the top management of
the accused No.1. However, the discounts offered were far below the
normal industry standard and the complainant requested the accused
Crl.M.C. Nos.1320/2013,5124/2013 & 4183/2014 Page 3 of 30
Nos.13 to 15 to reconsider their offer pertaining to the discounts in
advertising tariffs. Accordingly, the above referred accused persons
represented to the complainant that the top management of the accused
No.1 will have the final word as far as the case of the complainant was
concerned. Subsequently, the accused persons informed the complainant
that the high officials including accused Nos.2 to 6 in the management of
the accused No.1 had refused to relax the advertisement tariffs for the
complainant. Hence, the negotiations failed and the complainant stopped
advertising in the newspaper of the accused persons.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply