9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor entered into a vehicle hiring agreement with MTS Company on 25th June, 2016. As per this Agreement all five trucks of TL Company were under the exclusive hiring contract with MTS Company and the same were run by them till their possession was taken over by the financier, ICICI Bank Ltd on 05.01.2017 - thus, it is clear that both the Companies have close business relations and Appellant Parvesh is a Director in both the Companies. Hence, it cannot be said that the Tribunal had no Jurisdiction to inflict any damages against the MTS Company. Therefore the Tribunal held that Parvesh and MTS Company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to Brijesh. It is proved that Parvesh has not account for the earnings of the trucks from 20.8.2016 to 5.1.2017. However, Learned Tribunal without considering the above referred circumstances ordered Parvesh and MTS Company to pay ₹ 20 Lakhs is not justifiable - Brijesh has not produced any voucher for the amount ₹ 3,71,5000/- and has not satisfied how the advance amount of ₹ 2 Lakhs received under agreement from MTS Company was adjusted. The capital of ₹ 5 Lakhs in four and half months would earn ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on or about 15.10.2012. The Respondent No. 1 TL Company started its business with purchase of five trucks worth ₹ 63 Lakhs and had also spend huge amount on building the body of those trucks. The Company has taken a huge amount of loan from the Bank to buy those trucks. 3. The TL Company started its operations and trucks started running for MTS Company. That initially for few days the MTS Company made regular payments and the business was running smooth till 15.08.2016. Thereafter, Appellant Parvesh started raising problems. He was unhappy with the drivers engaged by Brijesh. Therefore, he replaced them. This was done with a specific and oblique purpose to ensure that the drivers would not report to Brijesh. So that Brijesh should not know where the trucks were plying. First month potential income of the business was generated but in subsequent months the revenue declined sharply. It was alleged that the trucks of TL Company have been used for the business of MTS Company without remittance to the TL Company which has resulted in causing financial loss to the TL Company and Brijesh. 4. The affairs of the TL Company were totally in control of Parvesh and he mismanaged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the Petition and the Petition is malafidee. It is also stated that the Petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous as already the relief so claimed in the Petition does not survive. The trucks through which revenue to be generated has already been taken over by the financier i.e. ICICI Bank and has been auctioned. Brijesh concealed the material facts from this Tribunal. The five trucks were purchased after getting financed from ICICI Bank on the personal guarantee of MTS Company and its director Viresh Kumar Jain. The trucks so purchased were converted into closed body containers for which expenses were made from the account of Parvesh and the advance of ₹ 2 lakhs, so taken from MTS Company against the Vehicle Hiring Agreement with TL Company. Parvesh made counter allegations that Brijesh handled the operation of the Company and has mismanaged by paying to drivers without submitting any account and therefore, Brijesh is liable to account for a sum of ₹ 3,71,500 withdrawn from the bank on the ground of disbursing salary and expenses of the drivers. In the absence of any vouchers produced, the said amount withdrawn could not be reconciled and hence, it amounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the natural Justice. 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Parvesh submitted that Learned Tribunal had ignored the fact that TL Company had accepted ₹ 2 lakhs as an advance from MTS Company for entering into Vehicle Hiring Agreement. The Tribunal erroneously came to a conclusion that Parvesh hold 80% equity and his brother hold 20% equity in the MTS Company. In support, there is no material on record before the Tribunal hence, such finding is based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant Parvesh submitted that Learned Tribunal in the impugned order held that the leasing of the trucks to MTS Company was without proper authorization and resolution passed by the TL Company, such finding is illegal. The Appellant Parvesh categorically asserted that the minute book is in possession and custody of Brijesh which contains all resolution so passed with regard to the business. The entering into vehicle hiring agreement with MTS Company by TL Company was within the knowledge of Brijesh. Therefore, he never objected. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Parvesh submitted that Tribunal had ignored the Bank stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Brijesh supports the impugned order and submitted that Learned Tribunal has rightly, held that Parvesh was incharge of the operation of hiring trucks. However, he has not explained as to why earnings not deposited in the bank account of TL Company and the trucks were not hired to the other parties when sufficient business could not be generated through MTS Company. The TL Company s business was in control of Parvesh and he has without sharing the details and without maintaining record, conveniently pocketed the money. Thus, the Appellant Parvesh cheated and defrauded Brijesh. It is also submitted that Parvesh has deliberately not produced statement of accounts before the Tribunal. There is no substance in these Appeals. Therefore, the Appeals are liable to be dismissed. 15. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Appellants have not raised any question of law arising out of the impugned order and the Appeals are based on factual matrix, disputed facts and issues arising out of those disputed facts. These issues have been judicially tested determined and adjudicated by the Tribunal by way of a self-speaking and a reasoned Judgment. Hence, the Appeals are devoid of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to hiring agreement with MTS Company. 24. We have considered arguments of the parties, It is true that on 25th June 2016 Parvesh being a director of the TL Company entered into Vehicle Hiring and Transportation Agreement with MTS Company. Parvesh in his Affidavit dated 23.11.2017 affrirmed that TL Company authorized him for entering into agreement with MTS Company and such minute book of the Company is in possession of Brijesh. Brijsh has not controvert this fact. On 12.09.2016 Brijesh sent a notice to Parvesh. Para 10, 11 and 12 of the notice are reproduced as under:- 10. That contrary to my suggestion of running the trucks with Om logistic private company a renowned company in logistic solutions you insisted on running the trucks for your own company i.e MTS Logistic. 11. That the trucks started running for your own company from your Mahipalpur office to your pune office it is irrelevant to mention that you have offices at both Mahipal Pur, Delhi and Pune, Maharashtra. 12. That initially for few days your company namely MTS logistics paid regular payments and the business was running smooth however soon you started raising one problem or the other. 25. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings of Tribunal is correct. 29. Learned Tribunal directed Parvesh and MTS Company to compensate ₹ 20 Lakhs jointly and severally to Brijesh. This finding is seriously challenged in these appeals. 30. We have considered the submission of the parties. Learned Tribunal in Para 8 of the impugned order held that in the Petition, Brijesh claimed on average basis ₹ 50 lakhs for 5 months. Such a prayer is unsustainable as it is not found on cogent and calculable evidence. Thereafter, Learned Tribunal without any evidence on record awarded damages to Brijesh to the tune of ₹ 20 lakhs for not accounting for the use of revenue generated from the five trucks of TL Company. 31. We are of the view that while awarding the compensation of ₹ 20 Lakhs the Tribunal has not taken into consideration following circumstances: (i) Admittedly Parvesh deposited the revenue earned since 8.7.2016 to 15.8.2016 in the bank account of the TL Company. However, Brijesh has not produced such statement. If that statement has been produced, then on that basis average earnings for the period of 20.08.2016 to 05.01.2017 can be calculated. (ii) Under the hiring agreement, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
