- (1.) The plaintiff has instituted a suit praying a decree for a sum of Rs. 50 Crores as damages for defamation. The plaintiff claims the damages against each of the defendants alleging that by several letters addressed to the plaintiffs and other statutory authorities, the defendants have maligned and tarnished the reputation of the plaintiff Company which is absolutely untrue and baseless.
(2.) The plaintiffs claim to have acquired reputation and goodwill by dint of productivity, quality and human resource management and acquired a reputation in the economic field being a Dividend paying company. In a meeting of Board of Directors held on 24th August, 2009, it was decided to sale and dispose of the piece and parcel of land measuring 1.25 acres situated at Kantapukur, P.S. South Port, Kolkata-700 001 being a non-performing assets through open tender process. It was further resolved in the said meeting that the valuation of the said property shall be obtained by engaging a Valuer so that reserve price can be fixed with further stipulation to carry out the negotiation with the bidders, if required and to finalize the ultimate deal. The advertisements were published in the various newspapers on 7th November, 2009 inviting the bid from the intending Valuers and M/s Devcon Engineers and Valuers were entrusted to value the market price in the sealed envelop.
(3.) Subsequently a notice was published in the newspaper and also in the official web site of the plaintiff Company inviting the intending buyers to submit their bid. Pursuant to the said notice, eight persons submitted their bids, which were opened in presence them on 16th July, 2010. The highest offer which was received in pursuance of the said notice was from Mr. Intikhab Alam at Rs. 4.55 crores which was below the valuation submitted by the said Valuer. Thereafter, a negotiation was made with the said highest bidder who subsequently raised the price to Rs. 6 Crores which was in tune to the price indicated in the valuation report. The sale was subsequently confirmed in favour of the said highest bidder on 2nd November, 2010. After the confirmation of the sale, a letter dated 30th November, 2010, was issued by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff offering to pay 20% higher price than what was agreed by the said highest bidder. The said letter further contains an allegation as to the irregularity in the process by which the said land was sold to the said highest bidder by the plaintiff Company. By subsequent letter dated 5th January, 2011, the defendant no. 1 addressed to the plaintiff as well as the Ministry of Defence signifying their intention to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the said sell which was not only bad in law but was done by practicing fraud upon the Public Sector of India.;