Gujarat High Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Ducati Over Alleged Failure To Supply Bikes To Dealer
The Gujarat High Court recently quashed a cheating case against Italian bike company Ducati and its representatives over its distributor's alleged failure to supply bikes to a dealer.The court held that the complainant had entered into an "exclusive agreement" only with the distributor, wherein it was clearly stated that agreements entered into by distributor shall not be binding on Ducati....
The Gujarat High Court recently quashed a cheating case against Italian bike company Ducati and its representatives over its distributor's alleged failure to supply bikes to a dealer.
The court held that the complainant had entered into an "exclusive agreement" only with the distributor, wherein it was clearly stated that agreements entered into by distributor shall not be binding on Ducati.
The company had challenged trial court proceedings based on a private complaint lodged by a private dealer–Cama Motors over allegations of cheating. The trial had issued summons in 2013 to Ducati.
The complainant alleged that the petitioner company and its distributor had induced the complainant to execute a letter of intent wherein the complainant's company was appointed as a dealership to sell bikes of the petitioner.
For this, the complainant allegedly invested huge amount and also has established infrastructure facilities including renovation of its showroom and office.
Thereafter, the accused persons stated that only if the 100% amount is paid in advance, the bikes would be delivered. However the bikes were not delivered and thus the complainant suffered huge lost, it is alleged.
The petitioner argued that the letter was intent was executed between complainant and the distributor of the bikes–accused no. 7 Precision Motors, which clearly stipulates that any engagement that has been written by the distributor, namely accused No.7 in the name on behalf of Ducati shall not bind Ducati in any way and the distribution shall hold Ducati harmonious for any damage deriving from it. It was submitted that no role against the petitioner was made out in the alleged offence.
Justice PM Raval held that averments made against the petitioner did not attract the offences alleged, as the complainant had himself said that he had entered into a letter of intent with Precision Motors the distributor and not the
It further noted that the distribution agreement between Ducati and its distributors states that, each agreement undertaken by the distributor in the name or on behalf of Ducati shall not bind Ducati in any way.
"Assuming for the sake of argument that accused No.1(CEO of precision motors) representing accused No.7 (Precision Motors)– company, is an agent of accused No.5(Ducati) – company represented by accused No.2 (representative of Ducati), there is not an iota of evidence in the complaint with regards to any promise, commitment or any false promise being made by accused No.2 to the complainant, inasmuch as, the letter of intent is entered by the complainant with accused No.7 – company represented by accused No.1 on 24.06.2010, whereas the exclusive distribution agreement specifically is between accused No.7 and accused No.5 – company...
If at all, some commitments are made by accused No.2, then also, subsequent nonfulfillment of those commitments cannot be said to be criminal breach of trust or forgery or attracting provisions of Sections 418 and 420 of the IPC, inasmuch as, the complainant has entered into the letter of intent that with accused No.7 – company signed by accused No.1. Merely cleverly drafting the complaint by stating “All the accused persons”, by itself, would not attract penal provisions," the court said.
Quashing the case against the petitioners the court however said that Magistrate Court, may proceed against other accused, in accordance with law, since these observations are made only qua the present petitioners.
The plea was allowed.
Case title: DUCATI MOTOR HOLDING S.P.A THRO' RITESH KUMAR & ANR. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 20012 of 2013
Appearance: Senior Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot, advocates Mr. Sumeet Lall, Mr. Sidhart Kapoor, Mr. Dhaval Barot, Ms. Palak Rawat, Mr. Jineesh Vadodaria and Ms. Rhea Chokshi
MR.VISHAL J DAVE(6515) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1