S.No. / 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 KamlaLandmarc 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 3rd 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 KamlaLandmarc. / 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,KamlaLandmarc 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 KamlaLandmarc 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 KamlaLandmarc 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 alongwith 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 alongwith 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.
2. / COPYRIGHT VIOLATION NOTICE FROM RASA
a)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, 2015
b)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 HATHKARGHA
a)On 9/7/2015, Communication Department reported unauthorized usage of our trademark by a local Samiti at Lucknow named AwadhHathkarghaHastshilpEvamGramodyogSamiti.
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 AwadhHathkarghaSamiti 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.