Allowed

M/s. Panchajanya Enterprises v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl)

Telangana HC11 Jan 2023WP/26116/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the termination of a franchise agreement by BSNL due to alleged misappropriation of E-Pin data. Relying on an acquittal in the criminal case concerning the accused agent, the Court set aside the termination order and directed BSNL to return the forfeited bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Termination order dated 17-08-2010 set aside; Respondents directed to return Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs to Petitioner within four weeks.

M/s. Panchajanya Enterprises Vs Bharat… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 261',l6 OF 2010

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

M/s. Panchajanya Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. A. Srinivas, S/o. A. Madhava Rao, Door No. 7-4-187, Shop No. G-lV and V, Forojguda, Balanagar,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Rep. by Dy. General Manager (S & M), CM BSNL. A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office and Corporate Office at Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra ltrlathur Lane,

¶12

2 The Chief General l/anager, A.P. Telecom Circle B.S.N.L., Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Principal General Manager, Hyderabad Telecom District Bhavan, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The Assistant General Manager (Sales), Office of PGM., Hyderabad Telecom District, BSNL Bhavan, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the LT.AGM(Sales)/CM/lt/issing of E-Pins/2010114 daied 17-08-2010, terminating the agreement dated 28-042010, without causing any notice as illegal arbitrary and contrary to my Fundamental Rights under Article 14, 19,21 of constitution of lndia and not in accordance with the terms of agreement dated 28-04-2010 and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same in the interest of justice.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 33349 OF 2010)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Letter No. LT.AGIM(Sales)/CM/Missing of E-Pins/2010/14 dated 17-08-2010, by directing the Respondents to make supplies to me to provide telecom services, pending the disposal of the main writ petition in the interest of^justice.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 201O(WPMP. NO: 33620 OF 2010)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of Letter No.Lr.AGM(Sales)/Ctrr'l/lvlissing of E-Pins/2010/14 dated 17.08.2010, by directing the Respondents to make supplies to me to provide telecom services pending the disposal of the main writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 41445 OF 201'l\

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the office to list the above matter under the caption of "For being mentioned" for modification of the interim order dated 25.10.2010 in WP.MP.No.33349 of 2010 in W.P.No.26116 of 2010 to direct the respondents / Writ petitioner to extent the Bank Guarantee No.25l16 dated 21 .12.2OO8 issued by Central Bank of lndia, Kalyana Nagar, Hyderabad pending adjudication of the Writ petition in the interest of^justice, otherwise the respondent company will be put to heavy loss and irreparable loss and damage

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. CHETLURU SREENIVAS

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondents: SMT. C VANI REDDY

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.26l l6 OF 2010

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Mr. Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel fbr the petitioner and Mrs. C. Vani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶30

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the rcspondents in issuing the letter, dated I 7.08.2010 terminating the agreement dated 28.04.201 0 without causing any notice as illegal and 1o sct aside the same.

¶31

The petitioner and respondent No. I have entered into a I:ranchisee-ship Agreement dated 28.04.2010 on the specific telms and conditions agreed thereon. In tenns ol the said agreement, the petitioner herein had submitted unconditional Bank Guarantee of Nationalized Bank for Rs.10,00,000/-^(Rupees Tenlakhs Only) initially fbr a period of one year two months.

¶32

i) Pursuant to the order dated^16. 12.201 I of this Court, the petitioner kept the said bank^{guaranteervith the respondents alive and}

¶33

¶34

¶35

At i w P,lio )61 l6 of)0tn

¶36

not allo\,ed the same to lapse. l-he said fact is not disputed b1, lVlrs. C Vani Reddy, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶37

ii) Vide letter dated 17.08.2010, resoondent No..l ternirrateci the aforesaid agreement on the ground that "Prirna-f'acie is lound that Sri Uppala V,juy, an authorized agent ol M/s. Pancha.ianya Enterprises, the authorized fi'anchisee lor BSNL products lor Baianagar tcrritory in Hyderatrad Telecom District is involved in unfair activities in violation of clause 9.8 (d) ol the agreement dated 28-4-2010. which rcsulted in financial loss of around Rs. 1.42 crores to the BSNL."

¶38

iii) The said tennination by respondent No.4 was by invoking Clause - 19.2 ol the aloresaid Agreement. In vie"v of the same. it is relevant to extract the aloresaid Clause - 19.2 of the agreement, which is as under:

¶39

"Thc BSNL has thc right to terminate this agrcemcnt forthw,ith in case it comes to conclusion that the Franchisee has viblated any of the clauses of the agreement, which has resulted in or could result in loss to the BSNL or ma] cause damage to the service bcing provided by thc BSNL. l'he decision ol the BSNL rvill be linal in this rcsard."

¶40

¶41

KL,J W.P No.26l l6 of20lO

¶42

iv)^'l'herefore, the respondents have to come to the conclusion that Franchisee has violated any of the Clauses of the said Agreement which resulted in flnancial loss to the BSNL.

¶43

Mrs. C. Vani Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondents, rel-erring to the counter alfidavit, would submit that on 02.06.2010, respondent No.4 lodged a complaint with Police, Saifabad, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.337 of 2010 against Mr. Uppala Vijay, Commission Agent of the petitioner herein, Mr.Pallerla Ramesh, Junior telecom Officer (Officiating) Office of the BSNL and Mr. Arun Balram, for the offences under Sections - 380, 409 and 420 read with 34 of IPC. The allegations leveled against them were that on the transf'er of Mr. K. Loknadha Rao, SDE (Sales-ll) i.e., existing In-charge and Custodian of Stores of Mobile products, the stock is handed over to Mr. K.S.N. Nageswara Rao, SDE (Sales-l). While taking over the stocks by the said K.S.N. Nageswara Rao, it^is reporled that 26 Nos. of CDs. That should contain E-Pin Data were not available and replaced with blank CDs., which was also confirmed by the concemed Officiats. The value of the said^E-Pin's missing/misappropriated^{was found to the tuneof Rs. 1.43 Croresand}

¶44

¶45

¶46

subsequerltly basing on the said complaint, the Police on invcstigation, lound that the Authorized Agent ofthe petitioner herein is responsible Ibr the said lraud in connivance rvith some of the offrcials ol the I)epartrnent. Therefore, according to her, the respondents carne to the conclusion uith regard to the aforesaid loss caused by the petitioner and violation of tl.re aforesaid Clause of the said Agreement basing on the aforesaid cornplaint and remand report filed by the Invcstigating Officer in the aforesaid crime.

¶47

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner had produced copy of judgment dated 25.06.2018 in C.C. No.924 ol 20 t 1 arising out of the aforesaid crime passed by the leamed I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, wherein accused Nos. I and 2 were acquitted.

¶48

Perusal of the aforesaid^judgment would reveal that the prosecution had examined seven (07) witnesses as PWs. 1 to 7 and marked sixteen ( 16) documents as Exs.P I to P I 6 and seven (07) material objects. The said^judgment was on merits and on consideration of the entire evidence. both oral and docurrentarv. No appeal filed against the said judgment and the said judgment attained

¶49

KL,J tt.l'.No.26116 ol 2010

¶50

finality. Therefore, basing on the said remand report and complaint, the rcspondents cannot come to a conclusion that the Commission Agent of the petitioner involved in the unfair activities in violation of Clause 9.8 (d) ol the agreement, which resulted in financial loss.

¶51

It is relevant to note that Clause - 9.8 (d) of the aforesaid agreement says that merchandise will be sold at the premises by the Franchisee and it is clarified that it shall be the responsibility of the Franchisee to eflect the sales through proper invoices detailing the material particulars of the BSNL phone including the IMEI number. The Franchisee shall keep the BSNL indemnified against claims regarding unauthorized handsets sold or alleged to have been sold lrom the Franchisee's outlet (s), being raised against the BSNL by any third party.

¶52

As discussed above, the Cornmission Agent of the petitioner i.e., Uppala Vijay was acquitted in the aforesaid C.C. No.924 ol 2021. The lnvestigating Officer in Crime No.337 of 2010 has filed^charge sheet in the said crime and the same^was taken on file^vide C.C. No.924 of 201 I against Mr. Uppala^Vijay, Cornmission Agent ol^the petitioner, Mr. Pallerla^Ranresh, Junior Telecom Officer^{(Officiating)}

¶53

¶54

t.t t tY.f'No :6116 ot:0 ia

¶55

Office ol the BSNI.. The said^judgment is on consideration^{of the} entire material on record. Tl-rerelore, the respondents^{cannot contend} that they come to a conclusion with regard to the alleged^violation of Clause of the aforesaid agreement and financial loss to the tune of Rs.1.42 Crores. Thus, the atbresaid tern.rination order datcd 17.08.2010 issued by respondent No.4 is set aside.

¶56

I-eamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that norv the petitioner is not intending to continue r.r,ith respondents pursuant to Franchise Agreement dated 28.04.201 0. The BSNI- is now merged with Bharat Broadband Network (BBNL). The petitioner is entitled for aforesaid bank guarantee ol Rs.10.00 lakhs fumished by it which is valid pursuant to the order dated I 6. 12.201I passed by this Court

¶57

In view of the aloresaid discussion, the respondents arc directed to retum the aforesaid Bank Guarantee amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) fumished by the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement dated 28.04.201 0, to the petitioner within four (04) weeks fi'om the date of receipt of copy of this order to enable the petitioner to encash the same.

¶58

¶59

KL,J l{.P.No 261 l6 of 2010

¶60

I l.^'t'his writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, rhere

¶61

shall be no order as to costs

¶62

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶63

the ivrit petition shall stand closed.

¶64

SDi. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTAN ISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEC N OFFICER

To,

The Dy. General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), (S & M), CM BSNL. A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office and Corporate Office at Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,

¶70

The Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom Circle B.S.N.L., Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶71

The Principal General Manager, Hyderabad Telecom District Bhavan, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶72

The Assistant General Manager (Sales), Office of PGtv1., Hyderabad Telecom District, BSNL Bhavan, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶73

One CC to Sri. Chetluru Sreenivas, Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

One CC to Sri. C Vani Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110112023

ORDER

9,€ STATE
{
16 ttB $8 f
Joo
- y_.
' ./

¶84

WP.No.26116 of 2010

¶85

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶86

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶87

5.l a\"3

M/s. Panchajanya Enterprises v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Panchajanya Enterprises v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Narsimharamaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

R.J.R.M.Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

Gandikoti Venu Vs The State of Telangana and 3others

Bgs Members Association Muthangi Vs The State of Telangana

Tadaboina Narasimha Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

G.Manohar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana