Porsche states allegations by Indian importer baseless (UPDATE)
Acting on those allegations, a court in Rajasthan had issued bailable warrant for Matthias Mueller, CEO of Porsche, late last year on a complaint alleging breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy. Precision, the distributor of Ducati bikes and Ferrari automobiles, stated in its complaint, that VW had ended its contract unjustly which resulted in them moving Court.
Following legal proceedings, Indian courts have upheld Porsche’s claim regarding termination of importers agreement stating that filing of criminal proceedings was an afterthought and without any sound basis. Porsche on its part, have full faith in the Indian judicial system and are taking steps to have these warrants in form of summons to answer all such frivolous allegations levied against their company in the court of law.
Precision was appointed as a dealer eight years ago and has since then sold 1,000 Porsche cars in the country. They, on their part are challenging the termination of their contract while they state they have made considerable investments in South Asian countries.
In reply to Porsche’s stand, Precision Motor India Pvt. Ltd. has released a statement.
“It is surprising to see Porsche say they have high regard for Indian judiciary and calling all allegations baseless in the same statement. The arrest warrants have been issued after the Court followed the due process and found the charges worthy of issuing a warrant.
We filed the criminal case way before the Honorable High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur rejected the interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. So, it is misleading on their behalf to say the criminal case was an after thought. The cases in Honorable High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur and the Honorable Supreme Court of India were related to the interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which doesn’t involve inquiring into the claims. Since the offences committed by Porsche were of criminal in nature, therefore, we simultaneously initiated the criminal proceedings under sections 384, 418, 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code as the dispute between the parties can be resolved through evidence only.
Further, pendency of a civil dispute would not bar a person, party to the civil dispute, to lodge a criminal complaint. A civil matter does not particularly mean cases at District Court, High Court or Supreme Court. It also includes the disputes to be resolved under Arbitration.The Supreme Court has dismissed the case stating that the Agreement has an Arbitration clause and the applicable laws are UAE laws, thereby dismissing the SLP on jurisdiction only without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, we started the Arbitration process at Bahrain, for which we have already served a notice to the opposite parties.Since the offences committed by Porsche were of criminal in nature, therefore, we simultaneously initiated the criminal proceedings under sections 384, 418, 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code as the dispute between the parties can be resolved through evidence only. Civil proceedings, as distinguished from the criminal action, has to be adjudicated and concluded by adopting separate yardsticks. The onus of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, in a criminal case, is not applicable in the civil proceedings, which can be decided merely on the basis of the probabilities with respect of the acts complained of.
We have full faith in the Indian judiciary and will follow the due course of law in all the cases against Porsche.”