S.N o. ISSUE PROCEEDINGS AS ON DATE STATUS 1. TURNER ROAD – SICOM MATTER: a) We have taken a property at Bandra, Mumbai, on Leave & License basis from Kamala Landmarc Infra (a partnership concern) represented through its Managing Partner Mr. Ketan Shah. b) The matter is related to receipt of a notice form SICOM w.r.t. taking symbolic possession in pursuance of recovery proceedings for recovery of a loan taken by the owner of the property. c) During the process, we came to know that the owner had already sold the property to his company M/s Kamala Construction Pvt. Ltd. who had mortgaged the property with SICOM to secure a credit facility. d) The owner and his counsels suppressed this fact from us during the negotiations on the Agreement. a) We have sent a letter to SICOM, seeking a personal hearing in the matter and to accept rentals from us and to allow us to remain in the property, while claiming that Kamla Landmarc Infra and its partner Mr. Ketan Shah have played fraud upon us and granted a license in the property to us through a registered agreement. b) We have also sent a notice to Mr. Ketan Shah against fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust and for recovery of Security Deposit paid to them and the Capital Expenditure. We have also mentioned in the notice that we shall not be paying any rental to them until the matter is resolved by them. c) We had a meeting with the counsels in Mumbai on 3 rd October 2015. The counsels have advised us to again send a letter to SICOM. They have also advised us to keep the Writ Petition ready and to move the same only if SICOM moves ahead in seeking an eviction against us. d) The Counsels have also advised us to hold the filing of criminal a) The two letters which the counsels have advised to be sent to Kamala Construction and SICOM, have been dispatched. b) As confirmed by Rajendran, SICOM has agreed for another personal hearing in the matter and shall communicate the date and time for the meeting soon. c) We are awaiting a call from SICOM for a meeting. d) We have received a letter from SICOM in reply to our counsel’s letter, wherein SICOM has asked for vacation of the premises in line with their earlier notice. e) We had sent the reply to the same on December 02, 2015. f) On December 29, 2015, Rajendran spoke to the SICOM officials. SICOM officials have told Rajendran that since the developer is not responding, they are planning to file a criminal case against it. Further, they are open for a meeting on the issue. We are trying to set up a meeting with higher officials of SICOM at the earliest. g) We had a meeting with Mr. Sushil Mantri, Director, Kamla Landmarc at Mumbai on 11-01-16. He has mentioned that his MD has a meeting with the MD of SICOM and has submitted a plan to repay the loan.
Transcript
S.No. ISSUE PROCEEDINGS AS ON DATE STATUS1. TURNER ROAD – SICOM MATTER:
a) We have taken a property at Bandra, Mumbai, on Leave & License basis from Kamala Landmarc Infra (a partnership concern) represented through its Managing Partner Mr. Ketan Shah.
b) The matter is related to receipt of a notice form SICOM w.r.t. taking symbolic possession in pursuance of recovery proceedings for recovery of a loan taken by the owner of the property.
c) During the process, we came to know that the owner had already sold the property to his company M/s Kamala Construction Pvt. Ltd. who had mortgaged the property with SICOM to secure a credit facility.
d) The owner and his counsels suppressed this fact from us during the negotiations on the Agreement.
a) We have sent a letter to SICOM, seeking a personal hearing in the matter and to accept rentals from us and to allow us to remain in the property, while claiming that Kamla Landmarc Infra and its partner Mr. Ketan Shah have played fraud upon us and granted a license in the property to us through a registered agreement.
b) We have also sent a notice to Mr. Ketan Shah against fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust and for recovery of Security Deposit paid to them and the Capital Expenditure. We have also mentioned in the notice that we shall not be paying any rental to them until the matter is resolved by them.
c) We had a meeting with the counsels in Mumbai on 3 rd
October 2015. The counsels have advised us to again send a letter to SICOM. They have also advised us to keep the Writ Petition ready and to move the same only if SICOM moves ahead in seeking an eviction against us.
d) The Counsels have also advised us to hold the filing of criminal complaint and civil suit for recovery against Kamla Landmarc.
a) The two letters which the counsels have advised to be sent to Kamala Construction and SICOM, have been dispatched.
b) As confirmed by Rajendran, SICOM has agreed for another personal hearing in the matter and shall communicate the date and time for the meeting soon.
c) We are awaiting a call from SICOM for a meeting.d) We have received a letter from SICOM in reply to our counsel’s letter,
wherein SICOM has asked for vacation of the premises in line with their earlier notice.
e) We had sent the reply to the same on December 02, 2015.f) On December 29, 2015, Rajendran spoke to the SICOM officials.
SICOM officials have told Rajendran that since the developer is not responding, they are planning to file a criminal case against it. Further, they are open for a meeting on the issue. We are trying to set up a meeting with higher officials of SICOM at the earliest.
g) We had a meeting with Mr. Sushil Mantri, Director, Kamla Landmarc at Mumbai on 11-01-16. He has mentioned that his MD has a meeting with the MD of SICOM and has submitted a plan to repay the loan.
h) Thereafter we met the concerned officer of SICOM, who confirmed that the MD of Kamala met their MD and has submitted the plan. They are now working on the Plan and shall revert by 15-01-2016.
i) The concerned officials of SICOM have been seeking information from us regarding property tax, utility charges, monthly maintenance charges etc. The information has been provided to them.
j) Discussions are being held between the officials of SICOM, concerned officials of Kamla Landmarc and the prospective investors.
k) One Investor has approached us for buying the property with us as an investor. We have directed him to SICOM through the concerned official.
l) SICOM has published a notice for auction of the property in Economic Times, Mumbai. The date of auction is March 04, 2016.
m) They have requested us to allow inspection of the premises by prospective bidders on 23rd February. From our side Mr. Rajendran will remain present at the time of inspection.
n) Mr. Rajendran was present at the time of inspection. Two bidders came with the SICOM officials.
o) As mentioned by the visiting investors, the reserve price of Rs. 35 Crore is two high and they are interested in Rs. 25 Crore.
p) SICOM has again published a notice of auction with a reserved price of Rs. 25 Crore.
q) The interested bidders have inspected the premises and the auction will be happening on March 18,, 2016
r) The auction has failed again and none of the proposed investors submitted their bids.
s) As updated by Mr. Rajendran, some police officials have visited the Turner Road store to seek documents pertaining to our agreements executed with the owner. Mr. Rajendran sought time and will be meeting the police officials on August 02, 2016.
t) Mr. Rajendran met with the police officials on August 02, 2016 and was apprised of the fact that SICOM has filed a FIR against Kamla Landmarc and we have also been named as an accused in the FIR. However it is not clear whether a FIR has been lodged or a complaint has been filed by SICOM as till date we have not received any details or copy of the FIR.As discussed and agreed internally, we have sent a letter to SICOM, reiterating the contents of all the previous correspondences along with a cheque of arrears of rent from August 2015 till date to show our bonafide in the matter. We will be filing a caveat against any possibility of a suit for eviction being filed by SICOM in near future. Once we receive either the copy of the FIR or details of the FIR, we shall immediately proceed with filing of a quashing petition under section 482 Cr. P. C in the High Court. Mr. Rajendran is following up with the Investigating Officer (IO) for copy/details of the FIR. He is scheduled to meet the investigating officer on August 08, 2016.
u) Mr. Rajendran met the IO on August 08, 2016. The IO refused to share any information on the status of the FIR. The Caveats, against any possibility of a suit/petition for eviction being filed by SICOM, have been filed in the Civil Court and the High Court of Bombay.During our discussions with the Counsels, we had proposed for submission of a written representation to the local police in the matter along with the copies of the letters that have been sent by us to SICOM and the owners till date. The Counsels have advised that until we receive a written communication from the local police asking us to join investigation and/or provide documents, we should not submit any representation with them.
v) We were in receipt of letter dated September 02, 2016 from SICOM (received by us on September 07, 2016) wherein they instructed us to vacate the premises. The said issue was discussed with our Counsels in Mumbai who have advised that we should not send any further communication to SICOM in response to their letter. They further stated that the said letter was expected from SICOM as this is what SICOM has been maintaining in all their previous communications. Also, our caveats, filed in the District Court and the High Court of Bombay respectively, against the possibility of a suit/petition for eviction being filed by SICOM are subsisting and valid till November 16, 2016 and will be filed again upon expiration.We have requested our Counsels to enquire about the status of the police complaint that has been filed by SICOM.
w) We have been advised to seek a second opinion in the matter. Therefore we have assigned the matter to Adv. Nirmal Devnani and have sought his opinion on the pros and cons of filing a criminal complaint against the Developer and on SICOM’s right to evict us from the property.Adv. Nirmal Devnani has studied the relevant documents and has sent the fee quote. Once the fee quote is approved, he will be sharing his legal opinion with us.
x) The legal opinion of Adv. Nirmal Devnani is awaited.
y) We are in receipt of the legal opinion from Adv. Nirmal Devnani. He has opined that we should file a criminal complaint and a civil suit against the Developer. However he has not opined on the current complaint filed by SICOM and on the rights of SICOM under criminal and civil law. We have requested for his opinion on the same.
z) We have received the revised opinion from Adv. Nirmal Devnani. We are evaluating the same.
aa) The revised opinion of Adv. Nirmal Devnani has been reviewed and discussed internally. It has been decided that we will not be filing any complaint against the Developer and will continue to keep a watch over the matter.
bb) Our caveats, filed in the District Court and the High Court of Bombay respectively, against the possibility of a suit/petition for eviction being filed by SICOM were valid till November 16, 2016. The said caveats have been refiled on November 07, 2016 and will be subsisting till February 07, 2017.
cc) We have sought the opinion of our Counsels at Desai & Diwanji on the possibility of submitting a cheque for the arrears of rent with SICOM. Awaiting revert from the Counsels.
dd) The Counsels advised us to send a letter along with the cheque for the arrears of rent to SICOM. We sent the letter along with the cheque via registered post on December 09, 2016.
ee) SICOM has vide letter dated December 20, 2016 returned the cheque for arrears of the License Fee as was sent by us via registered post on December 09, 2016. The said letter was received by us on December 26, 2016.
ff) SICOM has advertised the property for auction on ‘as is where is what is” basis at a reserve price of Rs. 22.25 Crores. The date for auction has been indicated as January 18, 2017, to be held at the registered office of SICOM. Mr. Rajendran also received a call in this regard from SICOM.
gg) The date for the auction (of the Turner Road property) that was scheduled for January 18, 2017, has been extended to January 25, 2017.
hh) The auction that was scheduled for January 25, 2017 was cancelled by SICOM as they are in discussions with some investors who have shown interest in purchasing the property and have directly approached SICOM in this regard. One such investor is the owner of our other retail store in Mumbai.
ii) On February 03, 2017, Mr. Rajendran informed us that he has received a call from the SICOM officials stating that Mr. Nimesh (valuer appointed by SICOM) will be visiting the store for valuation of the property. On the same date, Mr. Nimesh visited our store for the valuation of the property.
Our caveats, filed in the District Court and the High Court of Bombay respectively, against the possibility of a suit/petition for eviction being filed by SICOM were valid till February 07, 2017. The said caveats have been refiled on February 06, 2017 and will be subsisting till May 06, 2017.
jj) On March 17, 2017, Mr. Rajendran informed us that an Inspector from the Assessment & Collection Department, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), visited the Turner Road store and enquired about the property tax payable and the pending dues, if any, in relation to the property. His visit was pursuant to a letter from SICOM, wherein SICOM has requested MCGM to share the details of property tax payable and pending dues and any other dues pertaining to the property.
kk) Our caveats, filed in the District Court and the High Court of Bombay respectively, against the possibility of a suit/petition for eviction being filed by SICOM were valid till May 06, 2017. The said caveats have been refiled on May 04, 2017 and will be subsisting till August 03, 2017.
ll) On July 12, 2017, we received a notice from the Bandra Police Station asking the Directors to appear on July 17, 2017 to show cause as to why an FIR should not be registered against them. On July 13, 2017, we submitted a letter with the Bandra Police Station informing them about the non-availability of the Directors on the said date and
requesting them to postpone the inquiry by a monthmm) While we wait to hear from the Bandra Police Station, we have sent
another letter to SICOM along with the cheque for the arrears of License Fee on July 24, 2017.
nn) On July 25, 2017, we received a mail from Mr. Rajendran, stating that SICOM has found an investor, who is interested in buying the property with FOPL as a tenant. He further mentioned that the SICOM officials and the investor were desirous of having a meeting with FOPL to discuss the modalities.
We met the SICOM officials and the investor in Mumbai on July 27, 2017. We were informed that the deal has already been finalized between SICOM the investor and that they are looking at registering the sale deed within the first week of August, 2017.
The investor has mentioned that post registration of the sale deed, he would want to renegotiate the license fee being paid by FOPL under the existing leave and license agreement.
We have requested the SICOM officials, who were present in the meeting, that once the sale deed is registered, SICOM should file a letter with the Bandra Police Station for withdrawal of the complaint qua FOPL. SICOM Officials have agreed to do the same post completion of the registration formalities.
An intimation from SICOM and the investor regarding the execution and registration of the sale deed is now awaited.
On the side, we have requested our counsels, Desai and Diwanji, to share a written opinion on the following: (i) rights of SICOM in the property and their right to claim the arrears of license fee; (ii) execution of tripartite leave and license agreement with SICOM and the proposed new owner; (iii) modus operandi for handling the
termination of the existing leave and license agreement with Kamala Landmarc Infra and refund of Security Deposit paid to Kamala Landmarc Infra under the existing leave and license agreement. The counsels will be sharing their opinion by August 01, 2017.
oo) We had a meeting with Mr. Vikram Singh on August 04, 2017. The draft of the representation to be filed with the local police was shared with him. Mr. Singh has recommended some additions to the draft and has advised that a copy of the representation should be marked to the concerned DCP, Commissioner of Police and the Home Secretary. He has also advised us to file a criminal complaint against the Developer.
We have requested our counsels to finalize the representation, so that the same can be filed with the local police by August 09, 2017. We have also requested them to simultaneously prepare a draft of the criminal complaint to be filed against the Developer.
On the side, we spoke with Mr. Shatrughan (SICOM’s representative) and enquired about the status of the execution of the sale deed. Mr. Shatrughan informed us that the investor wants to finalize the commercial terms with us before signing the sale deed.
pp) The draft representation, as shared by our counsels, was jointly reviewed by Mr. Vijai Kapoor and Mr. Viney Singh on August 11, 2017. They advised certain changes. We circulated the revised draft to all concerned on August 12, 2017. While Mr. Singh has confirmed the revisions, we await Mr. Kapoor’s confirmation on the same.
Mr. Kapoor has also advised us to send a letter to SICOM reiterating the fact that we have been approached by a potential investor and that we will get into the tripartite arrangement only after the sale between SICOM and the potential investor is concluded and registered. The draft of the said letter has also been circulated for
confirmation.
As soon as we get the approval, we will file the representation with the local police and send the letter to SICOM.
qq) The representation was filed with the local police on August 18, 2017 and the copies of the same have been sent to the senior police officials via registered post.
The letter reiterating the fact that we will get into the tripartite arrangement only after the sale between SICOM and the potential investor is concluded and registered was sent to SICOM on August 19, 2017.
rr) We had requested our counsels, Desai and Diwanji, to share a written opinion on the following: (i) rights of SICOM in the property and their right to claim the arrears of license fee; (ii) execution of tripartite leave and license agreement with SICOM and the proposed new owner; (iii) modus operandi for handling the termination of the existing leave and license agreement with Kamala Landmarc Infra and refund of Security Deposit paid to Kamala Landmarc Infra under the existing leave and license agreement.
The Counsels have shared a written opinion, which has been circulated to all concerned.
ss) Mr. Rajendran has informed us that another investor has shown interest in the property and is bidding for it at a price of Rs. 16 Crores. The investor has asked us to confirm on an email that once he buys the property, we will enter into a leave and license agreement with him on fresh commercial terms.
We have refused to send any such email and have conveyed to him that we shall discuss the commercials and requirement of a fresh
leave and license agreement only after the purchase is complete.On the side, we have sent an email to SICOM stating that if the investor buys the property, we would want to continue in the property on leave and license basis.
tt) On October 03, 2017, Mr. Rajendran informed us that another investor had submitted the bid in the auction of the property and had also deposited Rs. 10 Cr. With SICOM as the part payment of the total sale price. Now SICOM is waiting for the investor to deposit the balance of sale consideration and post that, SICOM will execute a Conveyance Deed in favour of the Investor.
uu) Mr. Rajendran informed us on October 23, 2017, that the property has been sold by SICOM to one investor, M/s Y. M. Infra. Mr. Atif from Y. M. Infra has approached Mr. Rajendran for a meeting on November 02, 2017 in Mumbai to discuss the terms of license.
We had met Mr. Atif in the month of July this year, while his negotiations with SICOM were underway. He had communicated to us back then that once the sale of the property is concluded, they would want to renegotiate the license fee being paid by FOPL under the existing leave and license agreement and were looking at a tentative figure of Rs. 15,00,000/- as fixed license fee.
An email, seeking advice on the way forward, has been circulated internally.
vv) As discussed and agreed internally, we will be meeting the new owner on November 02, 2017 to discuss the terms of the license.
It has also been discussed that at this stage we should not agree on an escalation in the license fee and should not tender any further cheques to SICOM, as we have to recover the security deposit paid to Kamala Landmarc under the leave and license agreement.
ww) As scheduled we met the new owner and the SICOM Legal manager on November 02, 2017.
The new owner had initially quoted Rs. 16 Lac as the fixed fee but during the discussion came down to Rs. 14.15 Lac as MMG or 12% rev share, whichever is higher. Further, the new owner, as well as the SICOM legal manager mentioned very clearly that they will not consider the Security Deposit we paid to kamala Landmarc. A mail update on the said meeting was sent to the working group.
On 06/11/2017, an internal meeting held at HO, where it was discussed and agreed that we will wait to see the conveyance deed in favour of the new owner. We will look into the stipulations of the conveyance deed and the laws related to the transaction and then will again meet, discuss and finalize the further course of action.
As per the owners, we should confirm our standing to them by 10 th
November, 2017.
We are now awaiting the copy of the conveyance deed.
xx) We have received a notice dated November 20, 2017, from the Tax Recovery Officer, Mumbai, whereby he has directed us to deposit the arrears and amounts as may be due to Kamla Landmarc, against the income tax dues of Kamla Landmarc amounting to Rs. 11,12,42,486/.
Since, SICOM has been in symbolic possession of the property since August, 2015, we have nothing due and outstanding in favour of Kamla Landmarc. However, before we respond, we would like to seek an opinion of our tax consultant on the rights of the Recovery Officer in this case in order for us to draft a suitable reply. Siddhant is helping us with the same.
yy) Our response to the notice dated November 20, 2017 received from the Tax Recovery Officer, Mumbai, has been duly served in hand on the Department against acknowledgement.
We are also in receipt of a copy of the conveyance deed executed between SICOM and the new owner of the property (Mr. Mohamed Yakub Mustafa). The new owner is asking for a monthly minimum guaranteed amount (MMG) of Rs. 15 Lacs (current MMG is Rs. 10.35 Lacs). We have shared the conveyance deed with the working group and have sought their advice on the way forward.
2. COPYRIGHT VIOLATION NOTICE FROM RASAa) This matter pertains to receipt of a notice from Rasa
Textile and Clothing Co. (RASA).b) In the notice, Rasa has claimed a copyright violation by
us over two designs “Mitali” and “Chinar”, while claiming the said designs as their work of art and copyright over the same.
a) A holding letter was sent to RASA on July 09, 2015b) A detailed reply to the notice was sent to RASA on July
23, 2015.c) We received another letter from RASA against our reply
on August 21, 2015.d) On September 19, 2015, we have sent another letter to
RASA requesting them to share the high resolution pictures of the designs, on which they are claiming copyright.
We are awaiting a reply from RASA to our letter dated September 19, 2015.
3. TRADEMARK VIOLATION BY AWADH HATHKARGHAa) On 9/7/2015, Communication Department reported
unauthorized usage of our trademark by a local Samiti at Lucknow named Awadh Hathkargha Hastshilp Evam Gramodyog Samiti.
b) The said Samiti organized an exhibition under the name of “FAB INDIA” at Thiruvananthapuram
a) On July 13, 2015, we sent a Cease and Desist Notice to the Samiti.
b) On July 23, 2015, we received a reply to the Cease & Desist Notice from the counsels of the Samiti, wherein they refused to cease to use the same on the pretext that there is a ‘Space’ between the words “FAB” & “INDIA”.
a) The Suit was filed and was listed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on February 19, 2016.
b) The Hon’ble Court has granted an “Ex-parte interim stay” against the Samiti. Notice has been issued to Samiti for the next date of hearing.
c) The representative of the Awadh Hathkargha Samiti entered appearance in the matter on the last date of hearing.The matter is now adjourned to July 26, 2016 for the Defendant to file its Written Statement.
d) The Defendant has filed the written statement to our plaint. Now we need to file a replication to the written statement. We shall seek time to file the same on the next date of hearing viz. July 26, 2016.
e) We have filed our replication in the matter and the Registrar has cancelled the date fixed before the court viz. July 29, 2016, because the defendant has not filed the documents properly. Now the matter is adjourned to September 29, 2016 before the Registrar for admission-denial and before the court for October 04, 2016 for further proceedings.
f) The Joint Registrar has adjourned the matter for filing of documents and admission –denial of documents. The matter is now listed for November 30, 2016 before the Joint Registrar and for December 02, 2016 before the Hon’ble Court.
g) The matter was listed on November 30, 2016 before the Ld. Joint Registrar. The Defendant’s counsel did not appear and the Proxy Counsel sought time to file original documents. We opposed the request and consequently the Ld. Joint Registrar denied to give any further opportunity to the Defendant to file original documents.
h) Further, as listed, the matter came up for hearing before Justice Bhakru in the Delhi High Court. On the date fixed, Justice Bhakru was on leave. The matter has been adjourned to January 20, 2017.
i) The matter was listed on January 20, 2017 in the Delhi High Court. The counsel for the Defendant entered their appearance and apologized for the delay caused by her proxy counsels who had appeared on the last dates before the Joint Registrar. She further submitted that she had filed all the originals they had in their custody and filed the translated copes with the affidavit for admission and denial. Our Counsels pointed out their objections to the Judge about the translated copies not being signed by any translator and notarized by a notary. Additionally, the affidavit of admission and denial of our documents was incomplete.
The Judge recorded all our objections in his order and has re-notified the matter for admission and denial of documents before the Joint Registrar on March 16, 2017. In the course of arguments, the counsel for the Defendant made a suggestion that if we, the Plaintiff, were open to a settlement, the parties could meet in the Mediation Centre to possibly reach some kind of resolution in the matter.
Our Counsels informed the Judge that since they had no instructions as to whether the Plaintiff was open to such settlement, however we were agreeable and open to meet before the Mediation Centre to see if the matter could be resolved. The Judge has also fixed a date for Mediation on February 6, 2017 for both parties to meet.
j) The matter was listed on February 06, 2017 before the Mediator in the Delhi High Court. Mr. Satyajit Sarna and I along with the Counsel appeared before the Mediator.
The Counsels for the Defendant expressed their willingness to settle the matter. However they repeatedly informed us and the mediator of how small and insignificant the Defendant is as compared to us. We submitted that we were open to not pressing for punitive damages, however they must compensate the litigation cost and that the Defendant must also adhere to giving us an undertaking in terms of all prayers in our Plaint.
The Mediator has asked both parties to come back with figures as costs. He has further asked the Defendant to prove sales to see what kind of income was attributed through his exhibits.
It was unanimously decided that our counsels will draft the first set of terms as discussed and provide them to the opposing counsels on the next date of mediation. The next date fixed in the matter is February 23, 2017 at 3.30pm.
k) The mediation could not be held on February 23, 2017 because the main counsel for the Defendant did not come and the Mediator was also not available. The matter was adjourned for February 27, 2017. Since the main counsel for the Defendant could not make it for mediation today, the matter has been adjourned to March 08, 2017.
l) The matter came up for hearing before the mediator on March 08, 2017. During the proceedings, the Counsel for the Samiti showed their inability to pay any compensation. The Counsel for the Samiti mentioned that it’s a very small organization and 90% of the earnings from such exhibitions goes to the artisans. They also failed to submit the figures for the sales/profit from the exhibition.
The matter is now adjourned to March 28, 2017 for mediation. However, since the matter is already fixed for admission and denial of documents before the Joint Registrar on March 16, 2017, we will inform the Joint Registrar about the proceedings at mediation. In the meanwhile, the mediator shall compile his report and ask for some more time for mediation, from the court.
m) The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar in the Delhi High Court, on March 16, 2017. Our Counsels apprised the Joint Registrar on the current developments in the Mediation and requested for more time to see if the settlement was possible. The counsel for the Defendant did not appear.
The Joint Registrar has granted more time to conclude the mediation proceedings. The next date before the Joint Registrar for admission and denial of documents is April 21, 2017.
n) The matter came up for hearing before the Mediator on March 28,
2017. During the proceedings, the counsel for the Defendant submitted, that their client had suffered losses from the exhibition and therefore was not in a position to pay any amount whatsoever. The
Mediator directed the counsel to reconsider. The counsel stated that she was ready to provide all undertakings as discussed and also surrender and withdraw the application before the Trade Mark Registry. She further added if there was any promotional and/ or advertisement material with the offending mark, they would destroy the same.
The Mediator has asked the Defendant’s counsel to seek instructions from their client and has fixed the next date of hearing for April 11, 2017.
o) The Counsel for the Defendant got back to our counsels and have stated that they are willing to pay Rs. 50,000/- as costs; provide all the disclosures concerning their trademark applications and are willing to sign the settlement agreement in terms of our prayers in the plaint.
The matter has been deliberated internally and it has been decided that we will accept the offer. This fact has been communicated to our Counsels
Our Counsels will be appearing before the Mediator on April 11, 2017 and will apprise him about our acceptance of the offer. They will then proceed to finalize the terms of settlement.
p) The matter was listed before the Mediator on April 11, 2017. Our Counsels apprised the Mediator of the developments in the matter. The Mediator recorded that the Defendants shall adhere to the terms as previously discussed and shall pay the cost in the amount of Rs. 50,000.
The Mediator fixed April 18, 2017 as the next date for both parties to be present to conclude the modalities of the settlement.
The terms of settlement have been exchanged with the opposing counsel.
q) On April 18, 2017, the counsels appeared before the Mediator and they requested for an adjournment in order for parties to finalize the terms of settlement. The next date of hearing before the Mediator has been fixed for April 27, 2017.
On April 21, 2017, the matter was also listed before the Joint Registrar. Our counsels informed the Joint Registrar about the progress in the proceedings before the Mediator. On a joint request of the counsels for both the parties, the Joint Registrar adjourned the matter to May 23, 2017.k
r) The opposing counsels shared the revised draft of the terms of settlement on April 26, 2017. The matter was fixed for April 27, 2017 before the Mediator. Since we were not agreeable to the changes made by the opposing counsels and were of the view that this would entail a round of discussions with them, we jointly requested the Mediator for an adjournment in the matter. The next date for mediation is fixed for May 15, 2017.
s) We reviewed the revised terms of settlement sent by the opposing counsel and circulated our version on May 08, 2017. The opposing counsel responded on May 12, 2017.
t) The said matter was listed today, before the Mediator. We have sought an adjournment because the changes as recommended by the opposing counsel require a round of discussions with them. The matter has been adjourned for July 06, 2017.
u) The Matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on May 23, 2017.We apprised the Registrar regarding the progress in the mediation between the parties and the next date before the Mediator is July 06,
2017. At joint request, both counsels sought an adjournment in the matter in order to complete the modalities of the settlement.
The Registrar was pleased to adjourn the matter and has given the date of August 08, 2017.
v) The said matter was listed before the Mediator in the Delhi High Court on July 06, 2017. Our Counsels, Lall & Sethi appeared on our behalf and apprised the Mediator regarding the consensus reached between the parties on the terms of settlement. The Mediator was also informed that the draft was ready which had been reviewed by both counsels and parties.
The Mediator has fixed July 28, 2017 as the date for signing of the terms of settlement.
w) The said matter was listed on July 28, 2017 before the Mediator in the Delhi High Court. The mediation was concluded on the said date. The demand draft for Rs.50,000/- was handed to us in person and the mediation agreement was placed before the Mediator. Both the parties singed the agreement in the presence of the Mediator. The mediation agreement will now be passed by the Mediation Committee and will be sent to the Court.
Our case is scheduled to be listed before the Joint Registrar on August 03, 2017. The Joint Registrar will be apprised of the mediation proceedings and a date in all likelihood shall be fixed before the Court to record the terms and decree the suit finally.
x) The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar at Delhi High Court on August 03, 2017. We informed the Joint Registrar that the settlement has been concluded before the Mediator and the Settlement Agreement was signed on the last date before the Mediator.
The Joint Registrar has now placed the matter before the Judge for further directions. The next date before the Judge is August 22, 2017.
y) The matter was listed in the Delhi High Court on August 22, 2017. Both counsels representing the parties were present in Court to apprise the Judge on the status of the suit and the successful mediation between both the parties. The Judge noted that all terms of the Mediation were in conformity under law and that the authorized representatives have signed the agreement before the Mediator. The Defendant must now abide by all the terms as stipulated in the agreement and the suit has now been decreed in terms of the agreement and therefore, stands disposed of.
z) We are in receipt of the certified copy of the order of the Delhi High Court in the matter and the mediation agreement. The process for refund of the court fees has been initiated by our counsels.
aa) We are in receipt of the certificate dated October 10, 2017 issued by the High Court of Delhi, entitling us to receive a refund of the full amount of the court fees i.e. Rs. 1,00,173/-. The Counsels have asked us to submit certain documents in this regard along with a duly filled application form.
We are in the process of collating the documents required for claiming the refund and shall be submitting the application for refund at the earliest.
4. WATCH NOTICE FOR PROPOSED REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARK “ORGFAB”.a) On August 17, 2015 we received a watch notice from
our counsels M/s Lall & Sethi against the proposed registration of a trademark “ORGFAB” by a local person in Delhi under class 25.
b) As per the application the applicant has mentioned the
a) The last date to file objections in the matter is December 10, 2015.
b) We have discussed the matter with our counsels, who have advised us to get a field investigation done before we file the objections.
c) We have sent instructions to our counsels to conduct a field investigation on the party and submit a report.
1. We have received the field investigation report in the matter and as per the report the applicant was earlier into the business of readymade garments but he had closed the said business 7 years ago and not having any intentions to revive the said business. Currently he is in business of manufacturing of iron rods and strips.
2. The objections were finalized and the counsels have filed the same.3. Notice of opposition filed by us against the impugned application has
usage of the proposed trademark since 2008. been taken on record and numbered Opposition No. 840329. Our notice of opposition has also been served on the applicant. The applicant will now have a period of two months within which he has to file his counter statement, failing which his application shall be deemed to have been abandoned.
5. REGISTRATION OF “FABELS” MARK a) We had applied for registration of “Fables by Fabindia” Trademark.
b) The registry has communicated that the said application of ours is liable to be refused for the reasons that the mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is to say, not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another person and that there are other existing registered trademarks in the similar classes which are similar to what we have applied for.
We have decided to file representations against the examination report and to go ahead on registration of the marks.
Preliminary response to the examination report filed.
The mark has been published in the Trademark Journal under classes 14, 18 and 24 on February 27, 2017 and shall be available to the public for filing of objections up till June 27, 2017.
In case no objections are received by the Registry within this period, the application shall mature into registration.
‘Fabels’ Device Mark under class 18 and 24 stands registered. We are in receipt of the registration certificates. The application for registration of the device mark under class 14 is pending.
‘Fabels’ Device Mark under class 14 also now stands registered. We are in receipt of the registration certificate.
6. N-14, Greater Kailash - Civil Suit for Partition of the Property.
a) This is a long pending litigation w.r.t. our undivided property at N-14, GK 1.
b) Earlier the matter was decided by the Single Judge of Delhi High Court, whereby the Delhi High Court has ordered us to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff.
c) Later the Owners went in appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench increased the Mesne Profits vide order dated 31-01-2013. We complied with the order of the Delhi High Court and paid the arears of the Mesne Profits and currently paying Rs. 3,05,000 monthly.
Our SLP was listed on 07-12-2015. The matter was argued by Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate.SLP was dismissed by the Bench with an order that the final decree shall remain uninfluenced with the order dated 16-10-2015.
Now the matter has been listed before Hon’ble Judge Mr. Valmiki J. Mehta on 08.04.2016 for arguments.
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate, has been engaged for the matter.
The matter is fixed for arguments and as advised by Mr. Kapoor, we shall be
d) The Owners then went to Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP against the order dated 31-03-2013. Similarly we also filed an SLP against the said order. However both the SLPs were dismissed in-limine by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
e) The Owners had also filed the present suit for partition of the undivided property, wherein we filed our reply with the preliminary objection that the partition cannot be sought against a tenant in the property and the owner cannot ask for possession of the whole property. On this the Owner’s counsel had filed an application u/s 151 CPC for seeking clarifications on certain findings of Delhi High Court in order dated 31-01-2013.
f) The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court had, vide order dated 16-10-2015, while giving clarifications as sought by the owners, completely reversed the findings of the order dated 31-03-2015.
having a meeting with the Sr. Counsel to explore possibilities of impleading MCD into the matter.
Also we shall again offer to purchase the owner’s share through the lawyers.
The matter was argued on the point of jurisdiction by Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate in reference to the revision of pecuniary jurisdiction of courts and constitution of Commercial Courts.
Matter was adjourned for August 09, 2016 for orders.
On August 09, 2016, the matter was argued by Sr. Advocate Ravi Gupta on our behalf on the point of jurisdiction. As per the order of the High Court, the matter is being retained at the High Court but shall be re-categorized as a ‘Commercial Suit’.
Further, during the arguments, the Plaintiff’s counsel stated that since the Defendant (FOPL) is delaying the matter, the Plaintiff should be granted enhancement of mesne profits. Mr. Ravi Gupta argued that the fixation of mesne profits has gained finality as the SLP filed by the Plaintiff for enhancement was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The High Court has stated that if the Plaintiff files any application for enhancement, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
The matter has been adjourned for November 30, 2016 for arguments on the objections filed by us against the Local Commissioner’s report on vertical partition of the property.
The matter was listed before Justice R. K. Gauba on November 30, 2016. Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate, appeared on our behalf. The Counsel for the Plaintiff did not appear and was reported sick. The Proxy Counsel sought adjournment and the matter has been adjourned for March 01, 2017.
While the matter was adjourned, Mr. Jain continued to address the Bench with preliminary arguments stressing upon the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to plead our defenses at the time of hearing in the Suit. Mr. Jain also addressed the Bench about the issue of six tenancies.
The matter came up for hearing on March 01, 2017. Mr. Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate, appeared on our behalf and argued the matter.
The Hon'ble Judge after hearing, has granted us liberty to place on record certain documents as well as copies of various High Court and Supreme Court orders which were not there in the suit file in the present case.
The matter has been fixed for July 11, 2017 for further hearing.
On the said date, we appeared in the matter with Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate. On the first call in the matter, we appeared but since the opposing counsel was not present, the proxy counsel requested for a pass over. On the next call (after the pass over), Mr. Gopal Jain, who was stuck in the Supreme Court, could not appear. Thus the matter was adjourned. The next date of hearing has been fixed for September 27, 2017 for arguments.
The matter came up for hearing on the date fixed. We appeared in the matter along with our counsels. Though we were ready to argue the matter on merits but the Judge said that since it is the last working day for the High Court, she does not have time to hear the final arguments.
Thus the matter got adjourned to December 14, 2017 for arguments.7. Vasant Kunj Plot No. 10, Owned Property a) We have a Perpetual Lease of Plot N0. 10, LSC, Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi, from DDA, Vide a registered Lease Deed 14-09-1992.
b) In 2005, we received a notice from IndusInd Bank, on behalf of DDA, for a demand of arrears of ground rent of Rs. 35, 89,647, which included the interest on account of non-payment.
We have perused the Lease Deed and other documents related to the transaction and the notice received from DDA and replies were filed to the said notices.
Our view is that we have erred in interpreting the relevant clause of ground rent as the relevant clause is very clear, among other clauses that the ground rent after the initial period of 5 years is to be calculated @ 2.5% of
c) In March 2005, on advice of Mr. R. K. Mehta, Advocate, we deposited Rs. 3,30,005.00 as ground rent up till June 2002.
d) After this various correspondences were exchanged between DDA and us and DDA kept on sending notices for demand of arrears of ground rent.
e) The issue was of difference of calculation of ground rent. Whereas DDA was calculating it @ Re. 1 p.a. for the initial period of 5 years and thereafter @ 2.5 % of the premium paid which amounts to Rs. 3,30,000.00 per annum. However, as per the advice received from Mr. Mehta it should be calculated @ Re. 1 p.a. for the initial period of 5 years and thereafter @ 2.5 % of the premium paid which amounts to Rs. 3,30,000.00 for a block of 5 years.
f) DDA has refused to accept our way of interpretation of the relevant clause of the Lease and reiterated the demand of arrears and interest thereon.
g) Now when we applied for conversion of property from Leasehold to Freehold, DDA had again sent a notice demanding arrears of ground rent of Rs. 54, 12,899.00 and interest thereon of Rs. 48,55,157.00.
the premium paid which amounts to Rs. 3.30.000.00 per year.Thus the amount demanded is required to be paid. However we may approach DDA for waiver of the interest.
We shall be seeking an opinion of Mr. Vijai Kapoor on this matter also and shall proceed accordingly.
Mr. Kapoor has advised to meet one senior official in DDA and seek his advice.
We met Mr. Sarkar, Commissioner DDA, and he also advised that the rent @ 2.5% of premium paid is payable annually and thus the demand is right.
We have paid the demand of arrears and interest on November 23, 2015.
We met the Dy. Director of DDA for Commercial Lands for conversion order.
He took the details and shall be reverting with the approval on the conversion.
We met the Dy. Director and the accounts department has sent a confirmation on amount paid by us.
We met the concerned officials in DDA on February 18, 2016.
The Accounts Officer has mentioned that another amount of Rs. 2,20,000.00 is payable against the interest on the ground rent, as they have wrongly calculated the amount, while issuing the demand notice.
While sitting with the Accounts Officer, we found certain issues with the new calculation and thus the Accounts Officer has against instructed the concerned account clerk to recheck the whole calculation.
We will be again meeting the account officials on February 22, 2016.
A final demand of Rs. 1,96,741 was raised by the department on February 29, 2016. The same has been paid on February 29, 2016 itself.Will now follow-up with the Department for the order.
The Department has mentioned that in case of change of shareholders we will be required to pay 50% of the unearned increase in the value of the property. This is in line with a policy of the DDA. We have discussed the matter with the Dy. Director and he has advised that the Department is pursuing this matter with the Ministry and thus we should hold this for a couple of months. It is likely that the Ministry may withdraw the policy.We are discussing this internally and with the Department.
We are in receipt of a letter dated July 14, 2016 from DDA, wherein they have requested us to submit documents with respect to change in the shareholding pattern, details of the shareholders/directors and the annual returns from 1992 till date. We shall be meeting with the Dy. Director (CL), Mr. Sadashiv within this week to discuss this.
The meeting with the Dy. Director (CL), Mr. Sadashiv could not be held last week. It has now been scheduled for August 19, 2016. In addition to seeking clarity on the letter dated July 14, 2016 received from DDA, we will also seek to understand from him, the ground rent and interest component payable in the eventuality of us deciding to withdraw our application for conversion and refund of the conversion charges.
Due to non-availability of Dy. Director (CL), Mr. Sadashiv on August 19, 2016, we met the concerned supervisor in the Commercial Land (CL) Branch, who works under the Dy. Director (CL) and is handling our case. He informed us that in case we want to withdraw the application for conversion, the same can be done by filing an application with the Dy. Director (CL) and that it will take at least 3 months to get the refund of the conversion charges.
Thereafter we met the Assistant Accounts Officer (CL), Mrs. Rekha, regarding the payment of the ground rent. She informed us that once we apply for withdrawal of the application for conversion, the file will be assigned to the Accounts Department for calculation of the refund. Thereafter the file will be marked to Mrs. Rekha and her office will then calculate the amount of ground rent payable from December 01, 2015 to till date along with interest @10% p.a. on the outstanding ground rent. Upon calculation of the same, the said amounts will be deducted from the conversion charges paid by us and her office will then submit recommendations for refund of the balance amount.
As advised, we will be filing the application for withdrawal of the application for conversion within this week.
The application for withdrawal of the application for conversion has been filed with DDA.
The concerned official of DDA has called us for a meeting in his office today (September 19, 2016).
We met the concerned official at DDA last week. He sought information regarding the amounts paid by us against the conversion charges and copies of the challans issued against such payments. We have provided the requisite information to the officer and have also submitted the copies of the challans.
We have been informed by the concerned official at DDA that the application for withdrawal of the application for conversion has been transferred from the Commercial Land Department to the Accounts Department for further processing.
We followed up with the concerned official at DDA regarding the status of the application for withdrawal of the application for conversion and refund of the conversion charges and were informed that the same is under
process and will take some time.
We visited the office of the Dy. Director on November 30, 2016. After perusing the file, we were told that the refund has been approved. The concerned official has asked us to submit certain documents to process the refund. The requisite documents were deposited on December 02, 2016.
We met the Dy. Director (CL) and other concerned officials at DDA to enquire about the status of the refund. We were informed that the refund has been processed and we may get the credit of the refund by January 07, 2017.
We met the concerned official at DDA on January 27, 2017 and he mentioned that the file is now with the Accounts Department for transferring of the refund amount to FOPL’s account. We spoke with the concerned AO, who informed us that the amount will be transferred within this week.
We spoke to the concerned official in the Commercial Land (CL) Branch, DDA, who advised us to meet him and the Dy. Director (CL) on March 21, 2017 at 3.30 PM.
We met Mr. Israr, the concerned dealing official at DDA. He mentioned that the Accounts Department and the Director, Finance have made a noting on the file that the applicant should go ahead with the conversion and not seek refund of the conversion charges. We then decided to meet Mr. Sadashiv, Dy. Director (Commercial Lands) and he reiterated what Mr. Israr had said. He mentioned that they will send the file back to the Finance and Accounts Department, with their noting, in due course.
Seeing no resolution, we met Mr. Sarkar, Commissioner (Commercial Lands) and briefed him on the matter. Mr. Sarkar immediately called the Principal Commissioner, DDA, Mr. Jai Prakash Agarwal and briefed him on the matter.
Thereafter we met Mr. Jai Prakash Agarwal, Principal Commissioner and after hearing us out, he called Mr. Jaiswal, Director (Commercial Lands) and directed him to release the payment against the refund at the earliest.
We will be meeting Mr. Jaiswal in this week to discuss the next course of action.We visited the office of Director (CL), Mr. Jaiswal, on March 29, 2017, but we could not meet him, due to the recent enforcement of a rule of no public hearings on Wednesdays.
However, we managed to speak with him on the phone through the secretary of Mr. Sarkar, Commissioner (CL). Mr. Jaiswal mentioned that as per the directions from the Principal Commissioner, he has called for the file and will be arranging for the refund at the earliest.
We will try to meet Mr. Jaiswal again, within this week, to seek an update.
We had a telephonic discussion with the concerned official in the Commercial Land Department of DDA. He informed us that our file has been approved for refund of the conversion charges and that we will soon receive the amount. We will try to meet the concerned official within this week to track the progress of the refund.
The refund of the conversion charges has been received by us on June 28, 2017. However, we need to meet the Dy. Director (CL), to understand whether they have deducted the pending ground rent from the refund amount. In case they have not deducted the ground rent, then we will have to deposit the same to avoid levy of interest.
In our meeting held today with the concerned official in Commercial Land Branch of DDA, we were informed that we have to pay the ground rent for the premises effective November 30, 2017. The payment is being processed.
8. FIR - Saket Store In the month of April, during the forensic audit, it was found that the gift certificates/gift vouchers worth Rs.10.53 Lacs, submitted by three cashiers at Saket store are forged and thus after internal enquiry an FIR was registered at Saket Police Station against the three cashiers.
The services of all the three cashiers were terminated after conducting a disciplinary enquiry.
The matter is still under investigation and the charge sheet is yet to be filed.We are following up with the investigating officer.
We met the SHO last week who mentioned that the IO is on medical leave for last 1 month. Will be meeting the SHO again on 15th December. In case nothing moves, we shall approach the ACP concerned.We met the SHO and the IO again and came to know that the Delhi Police administration has ordered all pending economic offences matter to DIU (District Investigation Unit.
Our matter is also in the list of transfer. We are awaiting the transfer of the same to DIU and then we shall follow-up with DIU for the FR.
The matter has been transferred to DIU. The investigating officer has been appointed for our matter.
9. Show Cause Notice: Bathing Bar Sampling, Gurgaon On November 11, 2016, the Drug Control Officer, Gurgaon visited our store at Sector 15, Gurgaon and picked samples of bathing bars manufactured by Ayursens Naturals.We were informed by the Drug Control Officer that the manufacturer does not have manufacturing license for manufacturing bathing bars.
Form 17 & 17 A was served by the Drug Control Officer.
On November 22, 2016, we received a Show Cause Notice from the Department claiming violation of Section 18A and other provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act alleging that the store manager failed to provide information and documents as asked by the Drug Control Officer.
The reply to the Show Cause Notice was drafted and shared with us by Mr. Gulati, Advocate. The draft was then shared internally and with Mr. Satyajit Sarna for his opinion. Post discussions with him, the draft was finalized. We have sent the reply along with the required documents vide registered post/ad on December 05, 2016. A counterpart of the reply and the documents were sent in hand for submission with the Drug Control Officer.
The Drugs Control Officer has filed a complaint under sections 18A, 18(c) and 17C of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereunder against FOPL and the manufacturer of the bathing bars, Ayursens Natural. A communication in this regard has been received from Ayursens Natural along with a copy of the summons and complaint.
The matter has been listed for hearing before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram on August 01, 2017.
We have shared the copy of the complaint with Mr. Subhash Gulati, Advocate and will be meeting him to discuss the way forward in the matter.
Meeting was held with Mr. Subhash Gulati, Advocate on July 07, 2017. Mr. Gulati will be getting the Judicial file inspected and will procure a copy of the same within this week. Basis which we will strategize on whether we should file a revision petition against the summoning order or should we appear before the CJM. A meeting in this regard has been fixed for July 12, 2017 with Mr. Gulati.
In the meanwhile, we had an internal meeting on July 10, 2017 with Mr. Vijai Kapoor wherein he advised us on certain key points in relation to the matter. The next meeting with Mr. Kapoor has been scheduled for July 14, 2017 in which Mr. Gulati will also be present.
We had a meeting with Mr. Vijai Kapoor and Mr. Gulati, Advocate on July 14, 2017. During the meeting the matter was discussed, both on facts and law. It has been decided that on July 20, 2017, we will file for anticipatory bail and on July 24, 2017, we will file a revision petition against the summoning order of the CJM.
The applications for anticipatory bail were filed on July 20, 2017 and they came up for hearing on July 21, 2017. The Court has issued notice to the complainant for the next date of hearing i.e. July 26, 2017.
The draft of the revision petition has been finalized and will be filed subject to a favorable order in the anticipatory bail applications.
The anticipatory bail applications were listed for hearing in the Sessions Court on July 26, 2017. The matter was argued by our counsels. After hearing the parties, the Sessions Judge reserved the orders for July 31, 2017.
On July 31, 2017, the Sessions Judge disposed of the applications on the ground that the offences are bailable, with a direction to appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed i.e. August 01, 2017.
The revision petition, on behalf of Mr. William Bissell, has been filed and is now fixed for hearing on August 01, 2017.
We will now appear before the Trial Court on August 01, 2017 and seek regular bail for Mr. William Bissell and Ms. Vandana Tewari. Since Mrs. Charu Sharma is traveling, we will file an application for exemption for her.
On August 01, 2017, we appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Gurugram and were informed that the court record has been summoned by the Revisionary Court and thus we will have to wait for the court record to be sent back to the CJM’s court.
Since the revision petition was also listed for hearing before the Revisionary Court on the same date, we then appeared before the Revisionary Court. We addressed our preliminary arguments and requested for a stay on the proceedings before the CJM. The Revisionary Court refused to grant an express stay on the ground that since the court record is with the Revisionary Court, there is, in any case, an implied stay on the proceedings before the CJM’s court. Further, the Revisionary Court mentioned that it was ready to hear the final arguments in the revision petition. But the Drugs Control Officer sought time to prepare for the arguments, even though our counsels were ready to address the court with final arguments in the matter.
The Revisionary Court has adjourned the matter for August 21, 2017 for final arguments.
Thereafter, we appeared before the CJM’s court and placed before him the orders of the Sessions Judge in the anticipatory bail applications. The CJM said that for the accused present in the court, we could submit the bail bonds and the remaining accused could appear on the next date of hearing.
Since Ms. Vandana was present in the court along with the required
sureties, we furnished the bail bonds for her and she was granted regular bail by the CJM’s court. Now the matter is listed for September 21, 2017 in the CJM’s court for appearance of Mr. Bissell and Mrs. Sharma.
The revision petition was listed for arguments on August 21, 2017. Since the Judge was on leave, the matter has been adjourned to September 11, 2017.
We had a meeting with Mr. Vijai Kapoor on August 24, 2017 wherein he advised us to file an application under the RTI Act with Khadi Gramodyog, seeking clarification on whether the persons/firms manufacturing and supplying handmade soaps to Khadi Gramodyog, have been issued a license by Khadi Gramodyog or by the Drug Controller or both. The applications were dispatched on August 25, 2017.
Mr. Kapoor also advised us to procure handmade soaps from Khadi Gramodyog and examine the declarations therein. The soaps have been procured and examined. The observations will be discussed with Mr. Kapoor in the next meeting.The observations with respect to declarations on the handmade soaps (procured from Khadi) in view of the labelling requirements under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, were circulated to all concerned on August 29, 2017.
Mr. Vijai Kapoor, Mrs. Charu Sharma and Mr. Viney Singh advised us to share the same with the counsels for them to opine on whether the available information about the said soaps can in any way be used in the matter.
The observations have been shared with Mr. Gulati and we are now waiting to hear from him.
The revision petition was listed for reply and arguments on September 11, 2017. We appeared before the Court and were ready to argue the matter. Unfortunately, due to a tussle between the members of the Bar Association
of Gurgaon and the Police Officials, the Bar Association announced suspension of work for the day and the Court had to adjourn the matter. The next date of hearing is October 09, 2017.
The matter is listed for September 21, 2017 before the Trial Court. We will be filing the application for bail and bail bonds for Mrs. Charu Sharma and an application for exemption for Mr. Bissell.
On the date fixed i.e. September 21, 2017, we appeared before the court. Bail bonds for Mr. Bissell and Mrs. Charu Sharma were presented and were accepted by the court.
Now the matter is fixed for November 06, 2017, for Notice of Accusation, on which date we will argue on the point of charges.
The revision petition came up for hearing on 9th October, 2017. We appeared in the matter to address our arguments. However the Drug Inspector was not present. The Public Prosecutor informed the Court that due to personal reasons, the Drug Inspector is unable to appear for arguments.
We apprised the court that this is the fourth date given for the arguments in the matter and on each occasion, the Drug Inspector has either refused to argue or failed to appear. We requested the court to give the Prosecutor and the Drug Inspector a last opportunity for arguments.
The Court directed the Prosecutor to argue the matter on the next date of hearing and told him that no further adjournments will be given in the matter.
The hearing has been fixed for November 02, 2017.
On November 02, 2017, the revision petition was partially argued before the Sessions Judge and the Judge had adjourned the matter to 15/11/2017
for further arguments. We would be filing our written submissions along with copies of various judgements in our favour, before the next date of hearing.
The trial court matter before the CJM was listed for 06/11/2017 for framing of Notice, but since the court record was summoned by the Revisionary Court, the CJM had adjourned the matter for 18/12/2017 for framing of notice.
We appeared in the revision petition on the date fixed viz. 15/11/2017. On this date a new Drug Control officer and new prosecutor appeared in the matter.
The new Drug Control Officer sought time to go through the matter before addressing the court. We filed our written submissions in the matter and supplied copies to the Drug Control Officer and the prosecutor.
Thus the matter got adjourned to 7/12/2017 for arguments.
We appeared in the matter before the Revisional Court on December 07, 2017. Unfortunately, the Drug Control Officer was held up in an internal enquiry and therefore could not appear. The matter has been adjourned to January 11, 2018.
10. Copyright Notice by Ms. Rashi Bahri, Shoonya Digital: Mango Motif on Kids Wear
On December 15, 2016, Ms. Rashi Bahri visited our Jeroo Store in Mumbai and while browsing through the shelves, she found a kid’s jacket with a mango motif.
She claimed the said mango motif to be her creation and copyrighted work.
She has a company under the name and style ‘Shoonya Digital’ in the US and as per her claim she has a Copyright registration for the said motif in the US.
Mr. Kuldeep Sharma had a detailed discussion with Ms. Bahri on the same day and requested her for a day’s time to look into the matter and respond.
On December 16, 2016, Mr. Kuldeep Sharma spoke to Ms. Bahri and informed her that the said motif was developed by one of our designers, who is no longer working with the Company.
She was further informed that since she is claiming it to be a copyright violation and since we take the intellectual property of the company as well as that of the third parties very seriously, we are removing the subject
merchandise from the stores.
The subject merchandise was immediately removed from the stores and this fact was communicated to Ms. Bahri.
Ms. Bahri appeared to be satisfied with our immediate action. We requested her to share with us the registration details of her work, so that we may take the matter to a logical conclusion. She replied saying that she will forward the same after discussing it with her counsels in the US.
On December 28, 2016, Ms. Chitnis sent a notice (via email) to Mr. Chauhan, recapping the entire issue and seeking compensation and a personal meeting with the CEO.
A holding email was sent to Ms. Bahri, on January 03, 2017, requesting for (a) details of her copyright registration; and (b) her travel schedule so that a call or a meeting may be arranged.
On January 05, 2017, we received a response from Ms. Rashi, wherein she stated that she will share the Copyright registration details post discussions with her counsels in the US. She also mentioned that another SKU (being the Patang Jackets) with the Mango Motif, were available for sale on our website and asked us to take them off the shelves and the website.
On January 15, 2017, we received another email from Ms. Bahri, wherein she shared the details of the Copyright registrations. Ms. Bahri, in the same email alleged that the products bearing the Mango Motif are still being sold on our website and that we have effected web based sales, particularly in the US, despite of her sending us a notice.
We are verifying the copyright registration details shared by Ms. Bahri and will be reverting to her with a suitable response.
We sent an e-mail on January 17, 2017 to Ms. Rashi Bahri, stating that we
will examine the registration details shared by her and revert to her within a week’s time.
Another e-mail was sent to Ms. Bahri on January 25, 2017, stating that the registration details shared by her did not have the ‘Visual Matter’ and therefore requested her to share the copyright applications with us. We are awaiting her response.
In response to our email dated January 25, 2017 wherein we requested Ms. Bahri to share the copyright applications, she wrote to us on January 31, 2017 wherein she advised us to inspect the Library of Congress.
On February 03, 2017, Mrs. Charu Sharma wrote to Ms. Bahri for a possible discussion on the issue and requested her to share her contact details. Ms. Bahri shared her coordinates vide email dated February 06, 2017. Mrs. Charu Sharma will be speaking with Ms. Bahri on the date and time specified by her in the email.
On February 08, 2017, Mrs. Charu Sharma and Mr. Kuldeep Sharma spoke to Ms. Rashi Bahri. She has asked us to look into the possibility of taking a license from her company for usage of the ‘Mango Motif’. Mrs. Sharma requested her to share the amounts involved in getting a license from them in order to evaluate its commercial viability. Ms. Rashi stated that she would like to discuss this with her board and counsels and will get back to us on how they want to settle the matter.
Ms. Bahri has asked us to make a follow-up call within this week.
On February 15, 2017, we received an email from Ms. Bahri wherein she has recapped the entire discussion that was held with her over a telecon on February 08, 2017 and has also stated the terms of settlement, they being;
1. Fabindia to immediately cease and desist from creating any more products/garments bearing the Mango motif, unless permitted by
Shoonya on mutually agreeable terms. 2. With regard to the existing stock bearing Mango motif held by Fabindia,
Fabindia to suggest a mechanism by which Shoonya Digital is acknowledged as the owner of the said motif.
3. Fabindia to pay a royalty @ of 15% of the MRP of the total number of garments thus far manufactured by Fabindia, with the Mango motif.
4. Fabindia to pay a sum of USD 1,000,000 towards legal costs and compensation for events thus far.
The entire communication has been shared with our counsels, Lall & Sethi. We have requested them to provide us a search report on the certification details shared by Ms. Bahri and to draft an appropriate response to her email dated February 15, 2017.
On February 23, 2017, we received an email from Ms. Bahri wherein she requested us to respond to her proposal shared by her vide email dated February 15, 2017.
Our counsels, Lall & Sethi drafted an interim response to Ms. Bahri’s email, which was sent to her on February 27, 2017.
The search report of Lall & Sethi on the copyright registration details shared, by Ms. Bahri is awaited.
Our counsels, Lall & Sethi have shared with us the schedule of charges for inspection of the registrations at the Copyright Office in the US.
Since the charges are on a higher side, we have requested our US based counsel, Ms. Shivani Dudeja, who is assisting us with the renewal of our trademark registration in the US, to share the possible costs to procure an inspection report for the alleged copyright registrations.
We are awaiting the exact cost of inspection of the copyright registrations,
from Ms. Shivani Dudeja. She requested for the registration numbers (as provided by Ms. Bahri), which we have shared with her.
In the meanwhile, we have also sent a detailed note on the facts along with the chronology of communication to another US based counsel, Mr. Oded Kadosh, for his views on the matter. The entire communication exchanged with Ms. Bahri has been sent to him via an e-mail.
Further, we have also requested Lall & Sethi to send another holding letter to Ms. Bahri, stating that we are in process of inspecting the records to be obtained from the Library of Congress.
Lall & Sethi sent out a second holding letter to Ms. Bahri on March 17, 2017, requesting her to share the deposit materials and details of the copyright registrations being claimed by her, while we arrive at an appropriate response to amicably settle the matter.
On March 31, 2017, we had a con-call with Mr. Oded and Mr. Guy and they asked for certain details and information in relation to the matter. We sent the same to Mr. Oded on April 02, 2017.
Now Mr. Oded would be sharing his views on the matter, jurisdictional aspect and liabilities towards the payment of any compensation to Shoonya Digital.
On April 17, 2017, Mr. Guy shared with us a communication received from the counsels of Shoonya Digital, wherein they have demanded 15% of the MRP of the pieces produced, as royalty, for settlement of the issue. On examination of the communication, it was discovered that their counsels have mentioned the quantity in hand as 750,000 pieces whereas it is 1748 pieces only.
We replied to Mr. Guy on April 18, 2017, stating that we are principally fine with the proposal of settlement, but the number of pieces mentioned by
their counsels is incorrect and that we will revert to him with regard to the terms of settlement and the quantity of pieces produced.
On April 20, 2017, we shared our terms of settlement with Mr. Guy and also clarified the exact number of pieces of merchandise produced and quantity in hand.
Mr. Guy, in his email dated April 20, 2017, sought clarifications with respect to the quantity of pieces in hand as there is a huge difference between the quantity mentioned by the counsels of Shoonya Digital and the figure shared by us in our email to him. We scheduled a concall (to discuss this) with Mr. Guy for April 24, 2017 at 5:30 PM.
On the concall, we discussed the discrepancy in the numbers of pieces produced and quantity in hand and clarified our stand. An email has also been sent to him in this regard.
Mr. Guy will now speak with the counsels of Shoonya Digital and revert to us.
The communication to the Counsels of Shoonya in response to their terms of settlement has been sent by Mr. Guy Yonay on April 26, 2017. In the communication, Mr. Yonay has clarified the confusion with respect to the correct value of the merchandise produced by us and the stock in hand. He has also proposed our terms of settlement to them i.e. payment of royalty and giving credit to Shoonya for the design on the stock in hand.
We are now awaiting response from Shoonya’ s Counsels.
An email seeking an update in the matter has been sent earlier today to Mr. Guy.
Since we have not received any update from Mr. Guy, we have sent another mail to him, seeking an update.
Mr. Guy sent us an email on June 01, 2017, informing us that the counsels for Shoonya have demanded USD 60000 as compensation. Post internal discussions, we sent an e-mail to Mr. Guy requesting him to opine on the merits of the matter, jurisdiction of the US courts and liabilities.
He reverted on June 02, 2017 stating that in our case the US Federal Court will have jurisdiction over the matter. He also opined on the merits of the matter and our liabilities.
His opinion was discussed with the Management. It has been decided that we will propose USD 2250 as settlement amount and will also send an audited statement to Shoonya, validating the production and sale quantities of the subject merchandise.
Siddhant will be helping us in getting the audited statement from Mohinder Puri & Co.
The audited statement validating the production and sales quantities of the subject merchandise has been received from Mohinder Puri & Co. The said statement was shared with Mr. Guy on June 08, 2017. We have also proposed the following terms of settlement:a. USD 2250 as settlement amount; and b. Credit to Shoonya Digital for the design (by way of a swing tag) on the
stock in hand.
We received an email from Mr. Guy stating that he had shared the auditor’s report with the counsels for Shoonya and in response, they have expressed their willingness to negotiate on the settlement amount. Mr. Guy, in his email, has proposed 2 options for settlement.
The options have been shared with the Management and are being assessed by them.
We have received confirmation from Mr. Viney Singh and Ms. Charu Sharma on the options proposed by Mr. Guy for settlement. We will now communicate the same to Mr. Guy, for him to share it with the Counsels of Shoonya. An email was sent to Mr. Guy, confirming our choice of option to be communicated to the counsels of Shoonya.
Mr. Guy requested for a computation of the total revenue earned from sale of the subject merchandise. The same has been shared with him.
Mr. Guy confirmed that the email communicating the option of settlement agreeable to us has been sent to the counsels of Shoonya on July 11, 2017.
We have sent an email to Mr. Guy seeking an update in the matter.
On August 05, 2017, we received a mail from Mr. Guy confirming that there is no revert from the counsels of Shoonya.
On August 31, 2017, we received a mail from Mr. Guy informing us that he had a telephonic discussion with the counsels of Shoonya and that they will be sending their final counteroffer for settlement which could be around USD 15000. He has also mentioned that we need to increase our offer because if Shoonya files a compliant, the litigation expenses could be much higher than USD 15000.
The said mail was circulated to all concerned on September 01, 2017. An internal meeting to discuss the way forward has been scheduled for this week.
In the internal meeting held on September 15, 2017, it was unanimously decided that we will double our offer for settlement from USD 2500 to USD 5000 and authorize our counsel, Mr. Guy, to increase the offer to a maximum of USD 8000, if required, during negotiations.
A mail in this regard has been sent to Mr. Guy.
On October 03, 2017, we sent a mail to Mr. Guy seeking an update in the matter.
Mr. Guy has made a counter offer of USD 4500 to the counsels of Shoonya and is awaiting revert.
Mr. Guy sent us an email on October 22, 2017 in which he shared the communication received from the Counsels of Shoonya. They have quoted USD 8759 as the amount of legal expenses incurred by Shoonya and have asked for us to make a proposal which covers the above expenses and offers a compensation to Shoonya.
Guy has recommended to counter offer USD 10000 with a permission to sell the existing stock.
We discussed this internally and sent an e-mail to Guy, communicating our concurrence to his advice.
Mr. Guy had reverted stating that the counsels for Shoonya wants to know about the credit to be given to Shoonya for the motifs of the existing merchandise, which we intend to sell in pursuance of the settlement agreement.While we wrote to Guy, seeking a confirmation on the last proposed amount of USD 10000, we internally discussed this.
During the internal discussion, we decided that we can give credit to Shoonya for the Motif artwork, by way of attaching a swing tag to the merchandise. However, the language of such ‘credit’ will be discussed and agreed between the parties. It was further discussed and agreed that apart from giving the ‘credit’, we will not agree on any other stipulation w.r.t. the existing merchandise.
We sent a mail in this regard to Mr. Guy.
While Mr. Guy has confirmed that the counsels of Shoonya have agreed to the settlement amount of USD 10000, we are still awaiting a confirmation on the language of the credit to be given to Shoonya on the swing tag.
Mr. Guy reverted to us on 17/11/2017 with the draft of the statement to be mentioned on the tag to give credit to Shoonya.
We reverted to Guy on 20/11/2017 with the revised statement, to get a confirmation from Shoonya. We are now awaiting revert from Guy.
We are awaiting confirmation on the statement to be printed on the swing tag to be affixed to the merchandise. Follow-up email was sent to Guy in this regard. He said he is following up with the counsels of Shoonya and will get back to us.
On December 04, 2017, Guy wrote to us stating that both the proposed statement to be mentioned on the swing tag and the compensation amount were acceptable to Shoonya.
He shared the draft of the settlement agreement, received from Counsels of Shoonya, along with his proposed changes on December 07, 2017.
The draft has been reviewed by the working group. A confirmation email has been sent to Guy.
We now wait to hear from him.
11. Notice dated December 27, 2016 issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)
On January 03, 2017, we received a notice from the FSSAI wherein the Authority alleged that the food products sold through our network of retail outlets do not mention the FSSAI license number on the labels, which is in contravention
Ms. Ashima Agarwal and Mr. Kuldeep Sharma visited Mr. S. Anup, Assistant Director (RCD), FSSAI on January 04, 2017 to understand what necessitated the notice. Mr. S. Anup informed them that on the instructions of the Director, FSSAI, he visited one of our stores and found that the FSSAI
of Regulation 2.21(7) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011.
We have been directed to take necessary action to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act and the Rules thereof and submit an ‘Action Taken Report’ with the Authority within 15 days of receipt of the notice.
license number was not declared on the packages of the food products. He did not divulge the details of the stores visited by them and/or the products that they alleged to have inspected. They also met the Director, FSSAI. He directed them to file a compliance report in this regard within the timeline mentioned in the notice.
We are in the process of inspecting the labels of all the food products that are in circulation and will file a reply to the notice within the given timeline.We are awaiting the printed labels and details from the OF vertical. Upon receipt of the same, we will file the compliance report with the Department.
We spoke to the concerned official at the Office of the Assistant Director (RCD). He advised us to meet him on January 24, 2017 for submission of the compliance report. The concerned official has also advised us to send him an email in this regard.
Ms. Ashima Agarwal, via her email dated January 25, 2017, confirmed that the labels of all the food products in circulation, have the FSSAI license number printed on them.
Post receipt of the said email, we submitted our Action Taken Report with the Department on January 27, 2017. As confirmed by the Assistant Director, FSSAI, the matter stands closed on submission of the Action Taken Report. However, in case the Department directs us to submit any further information in this regard, we will do the needful as when we receive any such communication.
12. Notice dated February 08, 2017 issued by the Director, Legal Affairs, KVIC
KVIC vide their email dated February 08, 2017, sent us a notice wherein they have alleged that we are continuing to sell our products in the name of ‘KHADI’, despite our written assurance to remove the same.
It has also been alleged in the notice that we are misleading the customers by selling the product with two different
On February 11, 2017, we sent a reply to the KVIC stating that we have complied with the directions and that we would like to meet the concerned officials of the Commission to explain our position in the matter.
The matter has been discussed internally and it has been decided that all such products, which are bearing reference to ‘Khadi’ in the label will be recalled from the stores.
descriptions - the sew-in label declares the product to be ‘cotton’ but the tag states it to be ‘Khadi’.
KVIC has further alleged that we are unauthorized selling our products as Khadi, without obtaining Khadi Mark Registration from the Commission.
We have been directed to immediately stop using the word ‘Khadi’ on all the cotton products and remove the display banners from our stores.
We await KVIC’s response to our reply.
In an internal meeting held on February 20, 2017, it has been decided that another letter will be sent to KVIC, requesting for a meeting with the concerned officials.
On February 22, 2017, we sent another letter to KVIC, requesting for a meeting with the concerned officials.
We received an e-mail from the Director (Legal Affairs), KVIC on February 25, 2017, stating that the CEO, KVIC has agreed for a preliminary meeting on March 06, 2017 at the headquarters of KVIC in Mumbai.
Mr. Viney Singh, Mr. Kuldeep Sharma and Mr. Satyajit Sarna attended the preliminary meeting today (i.e. March 06, 2017) at the KVIC headquarters in Mumbai. KVIC was represented by Mrs. Usha Suresh, Financial Advisor, Mr. Satyapal, Dy. CEO, Mr. Rao, Dy. CEO and Mr. K. Lakshminarayan, Director-Legal.
The KVIC officials stressed that we have violated the Regulations by continuing to sell products as ‘Khadi’ despite of the undertaking given by us in our letters. They also alleged commission of criminal offence by FOPL.
In our defense, we stated that we have complied with the directions of KVIC and have removed all references to ‘Khadi’ from our products and have also removed the display boards that carried references to ‘Khadi’.
Mrs. Usha Suresh asked us to propose remedial measures. To which we responded by saying that we are willing to give an undertaking in writing to the effect that we will not name our products as ‘Khadi’ until we secure registration from KVIC.
For the “offence”, as alleged by KVIC to have been committed by FOPL, Mrs.
Suresh proposed payment of compensation, which can be forwarded to the artisans in the form of charkhas and raw material. We requested the officials for some time to deliberate upon this internally.
The next meeting has been scheduled for March 29, 2017 at the KVIC headquarters in Mumbai.
On March 08, 2017, we received minutes of the meeting held on March 06, 2017, from KVIC. Since the minutes, as shared by KVIC, were not correctly recorded and had insinuations, we sent a letter to KVIC and the revised minutes on March 12, 2017, via e-mail.
The physical copy of the said letter and revised minutes have also been sent via registered post on March 14, 2017.
Also, we are in receipt of letter from KVIC, wherein they have mentioned about an RTI application filed by one, Mr. Ankit Sahni, who has asked for a copy of the Letter of Approval dated February 12, 2016 issued to Fabindia by KVIC.
KVIC has asked us to revert within 3 days, if we have any objections against the same. We will deliberate upon this internally and accordingly revert to KVIC.
On March 16, 2017, we sent our response to KVIC stating that we had no objection against the RTI application filed by Mr. Ankit Sahni.
On March 17, 2017, we received an e-mail from KVIC, asking for confirmation of the Minutes of Meeting held on March 06, 2017, as shared by them. While we resent the letter and our version of the Minutes, we did state in our response that we had already reverted with our version of the Minutes via e-mail dated March 12, 2017 and had sent the same by registered post on March 14, 2017.
On March 24, 2017, we had a discussion with Mr. K. S. Rao, Dy. CEO for rescheduling the meeting fixed for March 29, 2017. Mr. Rao asked us to send him an e-mail in this regard, so that he could discuss this with the CEO-KVIC and revert on the next date for the meeting. We sent an e-mail to Mr. Rao, requesting him to reschedule the meeting after April 05, 2017.
On April 05, 2017, we received a message from Mr. K. S. Rao, Dy. CEO, that the meeting has been scheduled for April 06, 2017 with Mr. Anil Kumar, Joint Secretary, MSME at his office in Delhi.
We met Mr. Anil Kumar, Joint Secretary MSME, Mrs. Anshu Sinha, CEO-KVIC and Mrs. Usha Suresh, FA-KVIC on April 06, 2017.
Mr. Anil Kumar has advised us to send a representation on the conditions mentioned in the approval letter issued to us by KVIC and thereafter have a meeting with the KVIC officials for closure of the matter.
An internal meeting, to discuss the contents of the representation, has been scheduled for tomorrow (i.e. April 11, 2017) at 12:30 PM.
Pursuant to the meeting held with Mr. Anil Kumar, Joint Secretary, MSME, Mrs. Anshu Sinha, CEO-KVIC and Mrs. Usha Suresh, FA-KVIC on April 06, 2017, we sent the minutes of the meeting (to them) on April 12, 2017.
The representation against the conditions mentioned in the approval letter dated April 12, 2016 (issued to us by KVIC) has also been sent to them on April 17, 2017.
On April 19, 2017, we received a call from Mr. Yashwant Dakate, OSD to CEO, KVIC. He confirmed the meeting to be held with the KVIC officials at Delhi on April 26, 2017 at 1630Hrs.
We are also in receipt of the minutes of the meeting held on April 06, 2017 with the Joint Secretary, MSME, from Mr. Sahu, Under Secretary, MSME.
A confirmation to Mr. Sahu on the minutes shared by him has been sent. He has also been informed about the meeting scheduled for April 26, 2017 with KVIC officials.
On April 21, 2017, we received a mail from the Dy. Director- Khadi Certification, KVIC, reconfirming the time of the meeting scheduled for April 26, 2017, to which we reverted on April 24, 2017.
We met the Chairman and CEO of KVIC on April 26, 2017. During the meeting the terms of engagement were discussed.
Post the meeting, we sent a letter to KVIC requesting certain information and documents with respect to inspection and other provisions. The said letter has also been shared with the Joint Secretary, Ministry of MSME via e-mail.
The minutes of meeting and KVIC’s response to our letter are awaited.
We also had a meeting with Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court of India. We sought his opinion on the merits of filing a writ petition to challenge the KVIC Regulations. He advised us to not take any legal action at this point in time and that if KVIC proceeds with any legal action, we will defend accordingly.
We met Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court of India to seek his advice on the matter. Mr. Jain advised that any action as may be initiated by KVIC will be of no consequences as they don’t have any power to penalize under the Act and the Regulations. Further, any action beyond the provisions of the Act and the Regulations would be very weak on merits. He also advised that we should not directly challenge the vires of regulation in a writ.
On May 08, 2017, we received a letter (which is dated May 04, 2017) from
Mr. J. K. Sahu, Under Secretary, MSME. In the said letter, Mr. Sahu referred to the minutes of meeting, as shared by us vide our letter dated April 12, 2017 and stated that since the Ministry had sent the minutes for the meeting held on April 06, 2017, it is not appropriate for the participants to issue minutes. We have been advised to withdraw the said minutes.On May 19, 2017, we received a letter from KVIC, wherein they mentioned that since they are an autonomous body and thus not bound to share the internal circulars and guidelines. Along with the letter we also received the Minutes of meeting dated April 26, 2017.On the basis of the letter, we had an internal meeting and decided to engage with KVIC to seek registration. We will be meeting the KVIC official to take this forward.
On May 24, 2017, we had an internal meeting, wherein it was decided that we will send a letter to KVIC, confirming the minutes sent by KVIC. The draft of the said letter was shared by Satyajit.
The said letter was sent to the Dy. CEO- KVIC, on May 30, 2017 via e-mail and courier.
On June 05, 2017, we had a telephonic discussion with Mr. Dhanpal, Dy. Director (Khadi) KVIC. He mentioned that they are in receipt of our letter dated May 30, 2017 and will revert in a couple of days.
On June 12, 2017, we spoke with Mr. Dhanpal and Mr. Rao (officials of KVIC). We have been told that they are yet to discuss and decide on the letter that was sent by us on May 30, 2017. They said that they will revert to us by June 17, 2017.
On June 19, 2017, we spoke with Mr. Dhanpal Dy. Director (Khadi) KVIC, regarding the status of the matter. He informed us that the file with their noting has been sent to the Chairman’s office and that they would be meeting the Chairman on June 20, 2017. He mentioned that post receipt of approval from the Chairman, they will send us a formal communication
approving our application for Khadi Mark registration.
On June 28, 2017, we sent an email to the concerned officials at KVIC requesting for an update in the matter. Their response is awaited.
On July 07, 2017, we received KVIC’s response, wherein they have mentioned that we did not accept the terms and conditions related to security deposit and inspection charges. Also that we were found to be selling non-khadi garments as ‘Khadi’ products, because of which their Khadi Gramodyog Bhavans have suffered loss of business. They have stated that our application for Khadi mark certificate will be considered only after we compensate KVIC for their alleged loss of business.
On July 8, 2017, we had an internal meeting with Mr. Vijai Kapoor and it was decided that we will send a reply to the said letter in a couple of weeks. Mr. Kapoor has advised us on the draft of the reply and the said draft has been circulated to the working group for their review and comments.
On July 19, 2017, we sent our response to the letter dated July 05, 2017 received from the office of Dy. Director (Khadi), KVIC.
On September 14, 2017, we received a letter from KVIC communicating that our application has been rejected due to unauthorized use of ‘KHADI’. They have stated in the letter that in case we want the ‘Khadi’ mark certification, we will have to apply afresh and pay a registration fee Rs.5,00,000/- along with security deposit and inspection charges. They have restated their demand for compensation for alleged loss of business.
In the internal meeting held on September 15, 2017, it was decided that we will hold off on taking any action for the time being.
13 Notice from Adjudicating Officer cum ADM, Ghaziabad, for adjudication under Food Safety and Standards Act.
On June 15, 2016, the Food Safety Officer inspected our store in Shipra Mall, Ghaziabad and picked a sample of Besan. In February 2017, we received a report dated June 30, 2015 from the Public Analyst, Lucknow against the said
Since the notice was received on the very date on which we were directed to appear i.e. on June 30, 2017, we requested our counsel, Mr. Subhash Gulati, to appear on our behalf and seek an adjournment.
sample of Besan, wherein it was opined by the Public Analyst that, “since the mandatory declarations are printed on a detachable sticker, it is a violation of regulation no. 2.2.1 (4) of the FSS (Packaging & Labelling) Regulation 2011. Hence it is misbranded”.
On June 30, 2017, we received a notice from the Adjudicating Officer cum ADM, Ghaziabad, stating that a complaint has been received by the court against the sample of Besan picked by the FSO from our store at Shipra Mall. The Adjudicating Officer directed us to appear before the court on June 30, 2017 and file our representation.
An associate from Mr. Gulati’s office appeared in the matter and sought an adjournment for July 14, 2017.
On the said date, we will be filing our representation in the matter on the following grounds: (i) the findings of the Public Analyst do not fall under the definition of ‘Misbranding’, the complaint is misconceived; and (ii) the Lab which opined on the product is not an approved lab. We are meeting Mr. Gulati on July 12, 2017 for finalization of the representation.
The matter was listed for July 14, 2017. We have sought an adjournment. The next date of hearing is July 22, 2017. We shall be filing our representation on the said date.
On the last date of hearing i.e. July 22, 2017, the matter was adjourned to July 24, 2017 for appearance of the accused. Since the ADM was not present for the hearing today, the matter has been adjourned for July 31, 2017 for arguments and filing of written submissions.
The matter was listed on July 31, 2017 for arguments and filing of written submissions. Our counsels appeared on our behalf. However, the ADM adjourned the matter for August 18, 2017.
The matter was listed for filing of written submissions and arguments on August 18, 2017. However, the ADM was on leave on the said date. The matter has been adjourned to September 01, 2017.
The matter was listed for hearing on September 01, 2017. It has been adjourned for September 15, 2017 for arguments on the Show Cause Notice.
The matter was argued by our counsels on the date fixed i.e. September 15, 2017. The matter has been reserved for orders for November 10, 2017.
The matter was reserved for orders for November 10, 2017. On the said date, the Judge adjourned the matter to November 22, 2017.
The matter adjourned to December 04, 2017 for orders.
The ADM was on leave on December 04, 2017. Therefore the matter has been adjourned to December 12, 2017 for orders.
