K.P. Jayaram vs The State Of Nct Delhi on 18 July, 2016

1. Apprehending his arrest in case FIR No.69/2010 under Ss.

120B/406/409/420/467/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station EOW, Mandir

Marg, New Delhi, this application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal

Procedure has been moved by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint

dated 06.05.2010 sent by Mr Abhishek Chopra, Proprietor of M/s R.D. Traders to

Economic Offences Wing, Delhi wherein he made allegations against India

Household & Health Care Ltd. (IHHL) and its directors that an advertisement was

given in the Economic Times, Times of India in the month of March, 2004 stating

therein that IHHL is the sole license holder of LG Care (Korea) for the household

Bail Appln. 1008-2016 Page 1 of 18
and healthcare products. IHHL sought to appoint distributors with good financial

background. A rosy picture was depicted by the directors / officials of IHHL that

they were the subsidiary company of LG Care (Korea). They also gave the

FMCG products containing the name and logo of LG. The complainant started

business for marketing FMCG products of LG Care (Korea) as distributor of

IHHL in Delhi and gave a sum of Rs.3 lacs towards the interest bearing

refundable security to the directors of IHHL for a period of one year. The

directors / officials of IHHL received his signatures on some blank stamp papers,

obtained his company’s blank letterheads and two blank cheques in favour of

IHHL on the pretext to speed up communication with excise, sales tax, LG Care

(Korea), etc. IHHL organized launching of LG FMCG product in Hotel Nikko,

Metropolitan, Delhi for North India region where distributors, agents and media

personnel were invited and it was represented that IHHL was targeting sales of

Rs.300 crores for the financial year 2004 – 2005 and the media publicity budget

was Rs.30 crores and this target was easily achievable because of LG Care

(Korea) image. After the appointment of the complainant as distributor, all the

promises made by the directors of IHHL turned out to be sham as the sale was not

taking place as promised as the goods were of inferior quality and there was no

proper planning, lack of media campaign and the sudden resignation of the then

marketing team of North region. Thereupon, the complainant contacted the

officials of IHHL at Chennai. They assured him that they would give him business

of Eurolife, Worldwide, Rothmans cigarette, Mecca Cola Beverage, etc without

any corresponding security and that final agreement with these companies was

Bail Appln. 1008-2016 Page 2 of 18
expected by November – December, 2004. Even after these assurances, neither

sale was happening nor their claims were settled. The officials of IHHL informed

that the blank stamp papers, blank letterheads which were taken at the time of

appointment for safe custody and proper use under intimation, were misused by

IHHL and the accounts of all the distributors were shown as settled. The

complainant came to know that the MOU and license agreement were signed by

junior working level staff of LG Care (Korea) who were not authorized to enter

into such agreement with IHHL. IHHL took benefit of LG Care’s reputation and

brand image. Even before signing of alleged unauthorized agreement, IHHL

misrepresented itself to be sole licensee and started collecting money in the form

of security deposit though even under these MOU/Agreement they were never

authorized to collect money in the name of LG Care. It was alleged that IHHL

caused wrongful losses to all the distributors and agents by misrepresenting

themselves as licensee of LG Care (Korea) and defrauded the complainant of his

hard-earned money.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*