WWW.LIVELAW.IN IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI CRIMINAL COMPLAINT No. ___ of 2017 PS: SAKET DISTRICT: SOUTH IN RE: BATA INDIA LTD A Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 Having its registered office at: 27-B, Camac Street, First Floor, Kolkata – 700016 And having one of its corporate office at Bata House, 418/2, Sector – 17, Gurgaon, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon – 122001 Through Mr. Manoj Goswani (Vice President-Legal) …Complainant
Versus
1. Fox Star Studios India Private Limited A Company duly incorporated under The Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Having its registered office at) Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013. …Accused No.1 2. Mr. Naren Kumar Executive Producer Fox Star Studios India Private Limited Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013. …Accused No.2 3. Mr. Deepak Kumar Director Fox Star Studios India Private Limited Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013. …Accused No.3 4. Mr. Amit Shah
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Director Fox Star Studios India Private Limited Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013. …Accused No.4 5. Mr. Subhash Kapoor Writer and Director, of the Movie JOLLY LL.B. 2 C/o Fox Star Studios India Private Limited Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013. …Accused No.5 6. Mr. Annu Kapoor F/304, Serenity Complex, Near City International School, Oshiwara, Andheri (West), Mumbai- 400053
….Accused No. 6
7. Mr. Akshay Kumar 203, A-Wing, Prime Beach, Benzer Andheri West, Mumbai Also at Ground Floor, Juhu Prime Beach, Apartment, Gandhigram Road, Juhu, Mumbai ….Accused No.7 8. PVR LIMITED, 61, BASANT LOK, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110057 Through its Directors/CEO E-MAIL ID:
[email protected] ….Accused No.8 9. SATYAM CINEPLEXES LIMITED, 612-618, NARAIN MANZIL, 6TH FLOOR, 23, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI -110001 Through its Directors/CEO E-MAIL ID:
[email protected] ….Accused No.9 Novi Digital Entertainment Private Limited A Company duly incorporated under The Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Having its registered office at) Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013. Through its Directors/CEO …Accused No.10
10.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
11.
Other Unknown persons/firms/entities …Accused No. 11
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 SEEKING PROSECUTION FOR OFFENCES SECTION 499/ 500 READ WITH SECTION 34/120B OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860. The Complainant above named most respectfully submit as under:1. That the Complainant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office at 27-B, Camac Street, First Floor, Kolkata – 700016 and its corporate office at Bata House, 418/2, Sector – 17, Gurgaon, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon – 122001.
2. That the present complaint is being filed on behalf of the Complainant by Mr. Manoj Goswani who is duly authorized to file the present complaint on behalf of the Complainant Company by virtue of Special Power of Attorney dated 29th March 2012 and Board Resolution dated 28th February 2012 . 3. The accused no. 1 is Company which has produced a movie titled JOLLY LL.B.-2, which is slated to be released in theatres across the country on February 10, 2017. The accused no. 2 is the Executive Producer for the movie titled Jolly LL.B.-2 and responsible officer of the accused no.1 company. Accused no. 3 & 4 are directors of the accused no.1 Company and are actively involved in its business of production of the movie JOLLY LL.B.-2. Accused no.5 is the Director and writer of the script of the movie JOLLY LL.B.-2, who is responsible for the entire script of the movie and its content. Accused No.6 and 7 are the actors who are involved in the defamatory scene in the movie. Accused no. 8 and 9 are incorporated companies which run several multiplexes and single screen theaters in Delhi and other parts of Country and had continued with the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN publication of the defamatory scenes despite being put on notice on December 21, 2016 for over a month. Accused No. 10 is the owner of the domain name www.hotstar.com on which an active and interactive website is hosted. The impugned trailer had been actively hosted on the internet through the said website for public viewing all across the world for over a month. The complainant is presently unaware of the detailed description of the other accused persons who are involved in the making of the Movie JOLLY LL.B-2 and are responsible for its content. The Complainant reserves its right to implead such other accused persons who are involved in the act and omission leading to filing of the present complaint, as and when their exact details come to its notice. 4. That the Complainant is one of the leading manufacturer and seller of footwear in India since 1931 and in several other countries of the world since 1874 (which presently is operational in 70 countries with 5000 stores and 30,000 employees). proprietor
The of
Complainant
the
trade
is
also
mark(s)
the
“BATA”
registered under
the
provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999 in various classes and for various goods inter alia in respect of footwear. The said mark
BATA
Complainant’s
also
forms
corporate
an
essential
name
and
part is
of
the
exclusively
associated with the Complainant. 5. The
complainant
has
numerous
factories
and/or
manufacturing units in India where world class footwear is manufactured. The Complainant’s factory at Batanagar was the first Indian shoe manufacturing unit to receive the ISO 9001 certification in the year 1993. The Complainant’s retail outlets serve approximately 1 million consumers every day and the complainant touches the life of millions of Indians each year. That the Complainant nurtures the largest footwear retail network that comprises of more than 1200 stores in various cities/towns of India and its retail stores are amongst the most recognizable and prominent
WWW.LIVELAW.IN landmark in every major market in India. Such retail outlets exclusively sell only BATA products and use exclusive stationery and prominent sign boards of the Complainant’s registered trade mark/ trade name BATA in such a manner which clearly conveys an idea to the general public that such store are exclusive BATA outlets. The complainant is today the largest retailer and leading manufacturer of footwear in India and is a part of the Bata Shoe Organization. 6. That the Complainant has been continuously using the trade name/trade mark “BATA” as an essential part of its corporate
and
also
as
its
word
famous
inherently
distinctive trade mark in relation to sale of goods being footwear manufactured by it ever since the year 1931. 7. That the Complainant has enjoyed and continues to enjoy an impeccable reputation amongst all classes of the Indian public, those from the higher strata and even from the elitist of the elite lot of the Indian society.
The footwear
and other accessories of the Complainant are worn and adorned by who’s who of the country and are patronized by several well-known personalities. BATA as a brand stands committed to quality. The usage, reach and consumption of the goods under the trademark BATA is such that the same is a household name and well recognized brand across India. In fact, there would hardly be any Indian who would not be aware of BATA as a well known and reputed brand for footwear.
8. That apart from the trade name/trade mark BATA, the Complainant is also the owner and/or exclusive licensee and and/or manufacturer of many popular and prestigious brands including but not limited to Marie Claire, Hush Puppies, Scholls, North Star, Power, Bubble Gummers, Comfit,
Koolkids,
Sandak,
Westminster,
Verlon,
Weinbrenner, Naturalizer etc. which are sold inter alia through the exclusive Bata Retail stores.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
9. That apart from the common law rights in the trade mark “BATA”, the Complainant has also acquired statutory rights in the mark BATA in India in various classes under the provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999, such as trade mark registration under no(s). 6574, 132517, 183470, 256000, 277601, 303532, 922735, 1072341, 1072349, 1072358, 1072359 in class 25 in addition to various other registrations
in
several
other
classes.
The
aforesaid
registration(s) are valid and duly subsisting in accordance with law having being renewed from time to time. 10.
That the Complainant has already spent for several
decades and still continues to spend a huge amount to build
its
brand
reputation
by
advertisement
and
promotion, at the domestic as well as global level and by virtue
of
extensive
advertisement,
huge
customer
satisfaction quotient, high quality of goods manufactured by it. The trade mark/trade name “BATA” has been enjoying a status of a well known trade mark in India and has attained a high reputation amongst the members of the trade as well as the general purchasing public. The Complainant’s trade mark BATA has also been recognized as a well known trade mark in various decisions of the Indian Courts and is mentioned by the Indian Trade Marks Registry on its official website.
11.
In
such
circumstances,
the
complainant
has
established itself as India’s largest footwear retailer as also a reputed name globally. It has been a recipient of various prestigious awards from across the world for many years in the past as well as the present. Some of the awards worth mentioning in the recent times are: • Dun & Bradstreet Corporate Award-2015 • The most trusted brand – Brand Trust Report, India Study 2015
WWW.LIVELAW.IN • Best Footwear Brand 2015- Brand with outstanding e-Retail performance and re- design / re-launch of the year by the Franchise India • Bata India bagged The Economic Times award for ‘best 200 brands” for the year 2014. • Bata India bagged the Riders Digest “Platinum Award) Trusted Brand award for the year 2014. • The Institute of Economic Studies honored Mr. Rajeev Gopalakrishnan Managing Director and the Company with the Certificate of excellence and Gold medal at the “International Global Meet” on the 23rd January 2014. • The Report India’s most attractive brand is globally the foremost intensive study on Brand Attractiveness and has recognized Bata as the most attractive Brand at the 11th position in 2013
• Bata India bagged the award for ‘Most Admired Large Format Multi brand footwear Retailer of the year’ by the images, shoes and accessories Forum in 2013. • Brand Equity recognized Bata as the “Top most Trusted Brands” as the Most Admired footwear Brand (Retail) for the years 2012 and 2013 consecutively • Bata India was awarded the Customer & Brand Loyalty award in the footwear sector from AIMA at the 5th Loyalty Summit held in Mumbai, in 2012. • Bata India was also awarded the Most Admired Large Format multi brand footwear retailer of the year – national chain, by the Images, shoes and Accessories Forum held in Mumbai in March 2012.
12.
That on or about December 21, 2016, the attention of
the Complainant was drawn by the some third parties, to the official trailer of the movie produced by the Accused No. 1 and written and directed by Accused No. 5 titled as JOLLY LL.B. 2 starring inter alia Accused No. 6 and Accused No. 7, which is stated to be first released on
WWW.LIVELAW.IN December 19, 2016. The same was also being run extensively in various multiplexes like PVR Cinemas, Satyam Cineplexes owned by accused no. 8 & 9 and several single screen theatres in almost all towns, cities and states of India including the multiplex at PVR Plaza at PVR, Saket and PVR Cinemas in Select City Walk Mall, Saket District Centre, New Delhi (both owned by accused no. 8) within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The trailer was also uploaded online with English sub-titles for free and unhindered viewing on the internet on several platforms including a website www.hotstar.com owned and operated by Accused no. 10. The online links including the links for viewing on www.youtube.com for the said official trailer were tweeted by various personalities including accused no. 7 actor working in the said movies within a short time of its release. In fact the accused no.7 had publicized the release of the impugned trailer much before its actual release on his facebook page thereby creating a lot of anxiety amongst his fans who thereafter were given access to the trailer on the same fb page and twitter handle of accused no.7. The online versions of the said official trailer received Lakhs of views in the first 24 hours of its release.
Further,
Lakhs
of
people
visiting
various
multiplexes owned by accused nos. 8 and 9 and single cinemas are reported to have watched the same over the first two days. 13.
Upon the perusal of the said official trailer of the
movie JOLLY LL.B. 2, it was revealed that in the depiction published in a scene of the trailer at about 1 minute 05 seconds of the 2 minutes 37 seconds trailer, a reference to the Complainant’s well known trade mark/trade name BATA is made in a dialogue which appears during an argument between two actors namely Annu Kapoor i.e. Accused No. 6 and Akshay Kumar i.e. Accused No. 7, wherein Accused No. 6 is shown reciting the following line.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN “Varna kya…..BATA ka joota pehan kar, tuchhi si terricot ki shirt pehan kar, sala hum se zabaan lada rahe hain.” 14. Immediately on the conclusion of the afore-mentioned dialogue Accused No. 7 was shown to have slapped Accused No. 6, in the impugned scene. Further, while the aforementioned dialogue played, English subtitle to the same appeared in the following manner:-
“Who are you to argue with me in your CHEAP SHOES and shabby clothes”.
Screenshots of the aforesaid sub-title of the scene are depicted below:-
15. A bare watch of the aforementioned official trailer which trended as #1 on twitter continuously and was watched extensively over the internet and in cinemas, it became clear that the brand BATA of the Complainant had been deliberately shown in an extremely bad taste and the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN dialogue is intended to convey that the brand BATA being cheap shoe is adorned only by lower strata of society and one should feel humiliated if one wears BATA footwear. In fact the expression and reaction to such dialogue by Accused No. 7 in the trailer showed that even the person to whom such a statement was hurled took the same extremely negatively and slapped Accused No. 6 in “Open Court” scene as if he had been severely abused in the dialogue or he had been hurled with some derogatory remarks. It is submitted that the accused persons had no cause or justification to use Complainant’s name in a dialogue of its movie without any cause but to cause deliberate
injury
to
the
Complainant
and
to
show
complainant in an extremely bad light.
16. To add further insult to the injury caused by the spoken use of the brand BATA, while the subtitles of the aforementioned dialogue were prepared and in-scripted in the trailor, the reference to BATA SHOES was made as “CHEAP SHOES”, which also depicted the main purpose and intent behind using the name of the Complainant in the impugned scene. The acts of the using the well known trade mark/trade name BATA in the impugned dialogue, the reaction by accused no.7 as a protagonist and the lead actor of the movie in slapping accused no. 6 in open court, the act of inserting the phrase CHEAP SHOES while referring to BATA SHOES in the sub-title, the extensive publicity given by accused no.7 to the trailer on his Facebook page as well as on his twitter handle, all point out to a well planned criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons to lower the moral, intellectual and personal character of the complainant and its brand and to further defame it.
All the accused persons including the
accused no.7 are thus jointly and severally liable for their acts in defaming the Complainant. 17. It is evident that the deception of the aforesaid dialogue in the trailer culled out of the movie JOLLY LL.B. 2 was a
WWW.LIVELAW.IN deliberate attempt on part of the entire team responsible for the same to tarnish the brand image of BATA perhaps at the instance of some of the competitors of the Complainant whose products are promoted by Accused No. 7 as a brand ambassador. 18. The Complainant submits that the publication of the aforesaid trailer by all the Accused have caused serious damage to the brand image of the Complainant and maligned and tarnished the image and reputation of the Complainant in the eyes of public at large/in the estimation of others, including its customers, dealers etc., which reputation the Complainant has achieved and earned after great and sincere efforts for many decades.. 19. That over the past one month since when the official trailer hit the online platforms and movie screens, several of the Complainant’s senior management personnel, employees and dealers started receiving calls from their friends relatives etc. whereby they casted aspersions on the company that they were working for calling it a “cheap” brand and advising them to shift to other companies. Many such complaints started pouring in from Dealers of Complainant who complained that even the patrons, customers of the Complainant were becoming sarcastic while purchasing the shoes of the Complainant which range upto Rs. 9,000/- per pair. Several such customers quoted the impugned dialogue and stated that it was useless to spend money on Complainant’s product which are considered to be CHEAP variety of shoes by others. In fact several of the patrons of the Complainant have communicated to the managers at the showrooms of the Complainant that the reputation of the brand BATA has been lowered in their eyes after they saw the Impugned dialogue. Such patron customers have even indicated that they will switch to different brand as according to them they cannot wear BATA shoes as a style statement anymore.
Thus, such a deliberate act on the part of
WWW.LIVELAW.IN accused persons acting in concert and conspiring together has lowered the reputation of the Company and the persons
associated
with
the
company
including
its
directors, employees and the dealers of the Company, in the eyes of public at large. 20. The Complainant submits that in the light of aforesaid circumstances the publication of the defamatory trailer by the Accused has caused great mental agony besides damage to the unblemished reputation and image of the Complainant in the eyes of its employees, their relatives, and public at large. The Complainant thereby is being unnecessarily forced to bear the erosion of its goodwill and reputation created painstakingly over the years, in addition to the disparagement of the BATA brand in the eyes of the customers at large who had shown faith and brand loyalty in the Complainant for last so many years. 21. It is submitted that the impact of the Indian Movie stars such as Accused no. 6 & 7 is such that even the patrons of Complainant who have always adorned the footwear of the Complainant and felt proud in declaring that they wear BATA shoes now feel shy in proudly purchasing the goods of the Complainant and some of the patrons are even switching to other brands thinking that the popular perception regarding the brand BATA is that it is a Cheap Brand. Such is the effect of the impugned dialogue that the Complainant is likely to suffer losses in business. 22. Upon gaining knowledge of the extensive publication of the defamatory trailer, the complainant without wasting any time had issued a Legal Notice dated December 21, 2016 through its Lawyers to accused Nos. 1 to 7 with a copy for information and compliance in the first instance to accused no. 8 and 9. By the aforementioned legal notice, the accused persons were called upon to immediately pull down the impugned official trailer of movie JOLLY LL.B. 2 containing the impugned dialogues as referred in para 13
WWW.LIVELAW.IN and 14 above from all websites, online links and theatres; to
cease
and
desist
from
further
disparaging
and
tarnishing the brand image of the registered trade mark BATA in the movie JOLLY LL.B. 2 or in any press conferences, promotional events etc., in any manner whatsoever; to issue a written apology in favour of the Complainant and to publish the same in the leading newspaper and magazines and other online and offline medium and also to publish a notice prominently in the trailer and the movie of the JOLLY LL.B. 2 to be displayed in all versions including but not limited to theater release, channel release and home release versions declaring that the use of the word BATA in the impugned version of the trailer was erroneous.
23. That the legal notice, as aforesaid, was served upon the accused persons by email and/or speed post. Upon receipt of the notice, instead of complying with the requisitions contained therein, the counsel for accused no.1 production house and its directors/associates (being other accused persons herein) issued an evasive reply dated December 24, 2016 wherein despite objections by the Complainant, the accused persons tried to justify their acts. It is pertinent to point out that the averments contained in the reply were meritless and misconceived. 24. That even after service of the notice the accused persons did not cease and desist from publishing the impugned official trailer or amending the dialogue and rather continued with the same. It was noticed that sometime in January, 2017 the accused persons had recently changed the reference in sub-titles to “BATA” Shoes instead of “Cheap” Shoes. 25. In the meanwhile, the accused persons through the counsel for accused no.1 approached the counsel for the complainant to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution but kept on delaying the process while the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN accused persons continued their impugned acts with impunity and have in the process committed the offence of criminal defamation, as defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The impugned trailer only on one website link on youtube had till January 26, 2017 received over 19 Million views with several additional million views on website of accused no.10 and the same had been watched by Lakhs of moviegoers in the cinemas of accused no. 8 & 9, who had continued to show such impugned trailer at least once in every show ever since December 19, 2016 till at least January 24, 2016, when upon a suit being CS (COMM) No. 56/2017 filed by the Complainant Company before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court claiming Permanent
Injunction
restraining
Commercial
Disparagement, Defamation and Infringement of Trade and recovery of damages for over 3 Crores, and faced with the inevitable order of injunction, the Counsel for accused no. 1 to 4 and 10 assured to discontinue the publication of the impugned trailer with immediate effect and to remove the word BATA from the movie slated to be released on February 10, 2017. The suit for permanent injunction was thus decreed against the accused persons binding them to the statement made by them. 26. That
the
Complainant
submits
that,
aggrieved
with
impunity shown by the accused persons, wherein despite objections by the Complainant, the accused persons did not show self restraint or self control, and had continued their illegal acts forcing the complaint to seek an injunction from Court of Competent Jurisdiction, and damages for causing huge continuing damage to the reputation of the Complainant, it is therefore left with no option but to file the present complaint seeking prosecution for the offense defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 27.
That the complainant is extremely watchful of any
attempt which undermines the reputation of BATA as a brand or which is aimed to damage and disrupt the feel of
WWW.LIVELAW.IN pride
that
every
patron
of
BATA
experiences
and
demonstrates while somebody notices that a person is wearing shoes and accessories manufactured by BATA. 28.
That
by
the
publication
of
the
official
trailer
containing the aforementioned dialogue as stated above, the accused persons have published wrongful imputations concerning the Complainant entity which is known world over by its trade name/trademark BATA clearly intending to harm, and knowing very well that such imputations would harm & damage the reputation of the Complainant. Such imputations have lowered the moral, intellectual and personal character of the complainant in the estimation of others including its employees, dealers, their relatives, its patrons, and public at large. Such overt acts of the accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other amount
to
substantial
criminal harm
defamation has
already
by
virtue
being
of
which
caused
to
Complainant’s reputation and goodwill and which harm is continuing to be caused by each minute and by each view of the trailer which is still available on the world wide web through various web sites on which the same was already shared and through the cinemas where the same was shown in various multiplexes and single screen cinemas owned inter alia by accused no. 8 and 9 under the authority of accused no. 1 to 4 at least till January 24, 2017. 29.
That it is a known fact that such is the impact of the
Hindi cinema on common Indian men that the people are likely to avoid the purchasing and wearing BATA shoes under the apprehension that they would also be considered to be wearing CHEAP SHOES if someone notices them wearing
BATA
shoes.
The
direct
result
of
such
misrepresentation has caused huge financial loss to the Complainant in terms of loss of future profits and also the loss of reputation and goodwill which is irreparable and may not be able to be quantified in terms of money.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
30.
That the accused no. 1 is the production house of
which
the
accused
no.2
to
4
are
the
responsible
officers/directors who are responsible for the production of the movie JOLLY LL.B.-2 and its trailer. The accused no. 5 is the writer and director of the movie and is equally responsible for the defamatory content, as aforesaid. The accused no. 6 & 7 are the actors who have actively involved themselves in the defamatory content of the trailer knowing very well that such content shall irreversibly harm the reputation of the complainant. Accused No.7 had shown unprecedented interest in promoting the impugned trailer even before its release through his Facebook Page and Twitter handle and published the same extensively on his Facebook Page and Twitter handle which ensured that the impugned trailer was watched by his fans extensively over the internet. Such acts are deliberate and are a part of a larger criminal conspiracy at the behest of accused no. 7 who happens to be a brand ambassador of one of the competitors of the Complainant and is therefore indirectly interested
in
the
erosion
of
the
reputation
of
the
Complainant. The culpability of accused no. 8 to 10 is also evident on the face of record as they have deliberately allowed their platforms, theatres, to publish the impugned trailer in active connivance with the other accused. All the accused persons have conspired to lower the reputation of the Complainant and are thus jointly and severally liable to be prosecuted for having committing the offences, as aforesaid. 31. The
offences
as
aforesaid
were
first
committed
on
December 19, 2016 when the defamatory trailer was released and first published by Accused persons through various mediums including online websites, televisions, theatre etc. The cause of action to file the present complaint thus for the first time arose on December 19, 2016 and is still continuing as the trailer is still available online despite the orders passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Court on January 24, 2017. The complaint is thus filed within the prescribed period of Limitation provided in Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 32. The offences complained of in the present complaint have been committed by publication of defamatory trailer on internet
by
the
Accused
persons
which
have
been
published not only within the territory of India but also outside the country as all the people in the world can see and access the defamatory trailer on internet. Such content has been viewed and downloaded by several people within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Further, the trailer was also published in PVR, Saket and PVR Cinemas, Select City Mall, District Centre Saket, New Delhi situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and being so the offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble and hence this Hon’ble Court is competent and empowered to take cognizance of offence committed by Accused and try and punish the Accused according to law. 33. The Complainant wishes to examine following witnesses in support of its case:-
i)
Mr. Manoj Goswani
ii)
Mr. Anand Narang
iii)
Mr. Vijay Bhan Singh Rawat
iv)
Mr. Asutosh Ghosh
34. The Complainant therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take cognizance of offence under Section 499 punishable U/s. 500 read with Section 120B/34 IPC against all the Accused and issue process to secure their personal presence to face trial. The accused persons may further be tried, and punished for having committed the offences as aforesaid.
It is further prayed that a Compensation of Rs. 10 Crore be awarded to the Complainant by invoking under Section
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 357 of Cr.P.C. to be paid by all the Accused persons jointly and/or severally to the Complainant
Such other further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed against the accused persons
COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
NEERAJ GROVER/ADITYA SINGH ADVOCATES KOCHHAR & CO. 11TH FLOOR, DLF TOWER A JASOLA, JASOLA DISTRICT CENTRE NEW DELHI – 110025 Tel: 9810376869
NEW DELHI DATED
WWW.LIVELAW.IN IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI CRIMINAL COMPLAINT No. ___ of 2017 BATA INDIA LTD
…Complainant Versus
FOX STAR STUDIOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & Ors … Accused AFFIDAVIT I, Manoj Goswani, S/o Sh. P.N. Goswani aged about 52 years, Vice President (legal) of Bata India Limited, R/o SRA/52/C, Shipra Riviera, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, presently at Delhi do hereby solemnly declare and affirm as under 1. I say that I am the Vice President (Legal) and constituted attorney of the Plaintiff Company, in the present matter and as such am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and competent to depose the present affidavit. 2. That the accompanying complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking prosecution of the accused persons/entities for offences under Section 499/ 500 read with section 34/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been drafted under my instructions and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed there from. 3. That the facts stated in the accompanying complaint may kindly be considered as part and parcel of the present affidavit as the same have not been repeated for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.
DEPONENT VERIFICATION: Verified at New Delhi on this ____ day of ________, 2017 that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. DEPONENT
