New Delhi, Feb 3 (PTI) The Delhi-based Institute of Marketing and Management (IMM) has alleged that Arindam Chaudhuri of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) defrauded it by violating an admission agreement, misusing its name and collecting crores of rupees between 2011 and 2014.
IIPM, however, contested the allegations and said it will soon move court seeking quashing of an FIR filed by the Delhi Police in the matter.
The Delhi Police lodged the FIR against Chaudhuri and his associates on the directions of a local court based on the IMM’s complaint.
According to the FIR, IMM leased out the rear portion of the fourth floor and the entire fifth floor of its premises in the Qutub Institutional Area to IIPM in August 2011. Subsequently, both the institutes entered into a management consultancy agreement.
Gaganjit Singh, Executive President of IMM, has alleged that soon after the agreement, IIPM stopped paying lease rent.
While the lease dispute was going on, Singh, who is the main complainant, claimed that he came to know in 2020 that IIPM during that time had floated an organisation called IIMM, which looked similar to IMM and collected money from students by giving them an impression that they were granted admission to IMM.
When contacted, IIPM strongly denied all these allegations and said that IMM was aware of all these activities as everything happened under the terms of the agreement.
“We are moving a petition in the Delhi High Court in a day or two for the quashing of the FIR as it is frivolous and without any merit,” advocate Vishal Gupta said, sharing a copy of the draft petition with strong rebuttal on all counts.
In its complaint, IMM alleged that IIPM employees conducted admissions misrepresenting themselves to be employees of IMM.
“For the said purpose, the accused persons also prepared forged letterheads of the complainant’s organisation and issued receipts to students confirming their admissions into the complainant’s organisation. Registration fee etc was also illegally raised on the IMM letterhead,” the FIR alleged.
It added, “All payments made for the said admissions by the students were then routed to the ‘IIMM A/C of IIPM’ and the same was done in complete contravention of the terms of the agreement entered into with the complainant.” Lawyer Arjun Mahajan, who is representing IMM, said they came to know about the alleged fraud when a student approached a consumer court against fraudulent admissions and the court sent IMM a notice to appear.
Mahajan said, “It is alleged that the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons was to make a large number of students believe that they were being offered professional courses by IMM whereas the accused persons had no authority whatsoever to make any representations to any student or general public.” He also claimed that more than 1,000 students were directly and explicitly cheated by the accused persons who lured and enticed them to part with exorbitant amounts in fees whereas such students were neither provided with any classes, professional education or any kind of degrees or diplomas by IIPM.
Countering the allegations, IIPM’s draft petition states that on March 11, 2011, IIPM entered into a deal for transfer of the brand of IMM to IIPM for Rs 52,50,00,000 and IIPM paid an amount of Rs.4.8 crore as earnest money.
It was also stipulated that if IMM failed to execute an agreement within three years, it would refund twice the amount paid by IIPM to IMM as part payment, i.e., twice the amount of Rs 4.8 crore.
“Eventually, IMM failed to execute an agreement in this regard within the stipulated period of three years and hence, became liable to pay an amount of Rs 9.6 crore to IIPM. However, IMM failed to pay the refund amount of Rs 9.6 crore to IIPM on some pretext or other, majorly citing financial constraints,” the draft petition said.
According to IIPM, as IIM failed to refund, it allowed IIPM to use certain portions of its property situated at Qutub Industrial Area for running its affairs till the time the amount stipulated under the letter of intent (LOI) is not refunded to IIPM.
“Further, they entered into an agreement, according to which, IIPM and IMM would enter into an exclusive strategic alliance, and IIPM would help IMM in running their business school by providing admission related services, updating course curriculum as per industry needs, evolving standards, strengthening their over academic quality, etc,” the draft petition said.
IIPM also alleges that IMM still owed the refund amount of Rs 9.6 crores to IIPM and their FIR falsely alleges the offence of cheating, forgery, breach of trust, misrepresentation, etc.
The draft petition even claimed that the Economic Offence Wing of the Delhi Police exonerated IIPM in its preliminary investigation but the Delhi court ignored these facts and passed an erroneous order for the registration of an FIR. PTI JP SMN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.