<p> The fourth ACMM court in the city issued an order on November 18, 2015, directing the investigating officer (IO) to probe the complaint made by India Household & Healthcare Ltd (IHHL) — an erstwhile distributor — against the Chairman and CEO of LG Household and Healthcare, Seoul, Korea. <br /><br /></p>.<p>The court made the order stating that according to the complainant, there is no stay order against LG Household and Healthcare, the first accused (A1) in the case. However, since “it appears that some of the accused had obtained a stay order”, the court asked the IO to conduct the probe after verifying the status of the stay order.<br /><br />IHHL, promoted by complainant Vijay R Singh, claims it was the top performing distributor in India for LG Electronics India from 1998 to 2004. “In order to extend his business relationship further, Vijay R Singh through IHHL signed various Legal Agreements with LG H&H, South Korea, for the sole distribution rights of LG FMCG range of products in India,” a release by IHHL said.<br /><br />The company claimed to have spent around Rs 118 crore for purchasing consumer products from LG, and another Rs 58 crore as capital expenditure and operational expenditure.<br /><br />The dispute arose when despite all this, “three different arbitrary termination notices from LG H&H, LG CNS & LG Corp were served to IHHL for stopping the sole distribution rights, stating the new change in LG logo policy from 2005”, the IHHL release said.<br /><br />The company accused LG of thwarting its attempts to settle the dispute amicably through arbitration, and said LG went back on the agreement with IHHL only to take advantage of the removal of Press Note 18 by GoI in 2005. The Centre’s Press Note 18 of 1998 had made it obligatory for MNCs having joint ventures in India to obtain government nod before setting up new ventures in the same or related fields.<br /><br />When contacted, DCP (Crime) Ramesh told Deccan Herald that the High Court had given a stay on the case regarding continuing the investigations. “We have not received any further directions from the court so far. We will continue the probe if the court directs us,” he added.</p>
<p> The fourth ACMM court in the city issued an order on November 18, 2015, directing the investigating officer (IO) to probe the complaint made by India Household & Healthcare Ltd (IHHL) — an erstwhile distributor — against the Chairman and CEO of LG Household and Healthcare, Seoul, Korea. <br /><br /></p>.<p>The court made the order stating that according to the complainant, there is no stay order against LG Household and Healthcare, the first accused (A1) in the case. However, since “it appears that some of the accused had obtained a stay order”, the court asked the IO to conduct the probe after verifying the status of the stay order.<br /><br />IHHL, promoted by complainant Vijay R Singh, claims it was the top performing distributor in India for LG Electronics India from 1998 to 2004. “In order to extend his business relationship further, Vijay R Singh through IHHL signed various Legal Agreements with LG H&H, South Korea, for the sole distribution rights of LG FMCG range of products in India,” a release by IHHL said.<br /><br />The company claimed to have spent around Rs 118 crore for purchasing consumer products from LG, and another Rs 58 crore as capital expenditure and operational expenditure.<br /><br />The dispute arose when despite all this, “three different arbitrary termination notices from LG H&H, LG CNS & LG Corp were served to IHHL for stopping the sole distribution rights, stating the new change in LG logo policy from 2005”, the IHHL release said.<br /><br />The company accused LG of thwarting its attempts to settle the dispute amicably through arbitration, and said LG went back on the agreement with IHHL only to take advantage of the removal of Press Note 18 by GoI in 2005. The Centre’s Press Note 18 of 1998 had made it obligatory for MNCs having joint ventures in India to obtain government nod before setting up new ventures in the same or related fields.<br /><br />When contacted, DCP (Crime) Ramesh told Deccan Herald that the High Court had given a stay on the case regarding continuing the investigations. “We have not received any further directions from the court so far. We will continue the probe if the court directs us,” he added.</p>
