Non payment of dues for services rendered
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 04 March 2011
This query is : Resolved
COMPLAINT AGAINST ADHUNIK TRANSPORT ORGANISATION LTD Non-payment of dues towards procurement of bank limits.
LAKSHYA GLOBAL LOGISTICS PVT LTD AND THEIR FLAGSHIP COMPANY ADHUNIK TRANSPORT ORGANISATION LTD, (ATOL) having its office at Udyog Bhavan, Goregaon (E), Mumbai. The director of ATOL (hereinafter referred to as “the Director”) and CEO of Lakshya Global Logistics Ltd (herein after referred to as “the CEO”).
Our concern, in the said transaction, acted as an intermediatory between ATOL “the Company” and the said Bank, our concern is entitled to receive a percentage commission on the total amount disbursed to the Company, which was agreed between our Concern and the Director and the CEO of the respective Company.
After getting the limits sanctioned and the amount being credited by the Bank into the Company’s accounts, our concern approached the Company Director repeatedly for clearing our dues towards service charges for facilitating the bank limits, but till date our service charges have not been paid to us. The Company and its directors have willfully defaulted, with ulterior intention and motives.
Had it not been for our involvement in the entire transaction the Company would not have received sanction from the said Bank for the credit facilities required by the Company. This has been further confirmed and affirmed by the Bank Official who is also an authorized signatory of the bank. This has been affirmed and confirmed to the CEO, during his telephonic conversation with him.
The CEO of Lakshya Global Logistics Pvt Ltd (hereinafter called the “CEO”) approached our concern on behalf of Adhunik Transport Organisation Ltd on May 25th, 2010, for procuring financial services towards working capital which was fulfilled by way of arranging of Cash Credit facility (CC facility) and CMS facility (Cash Management facility) from a private Banker.
Throughout the transaction the one point contact we had with the Company was the CEO wherein he adhered to all requests of the bank for submission of documents which was communicated via email to us, the consultants, all the email communications are available. The bank congratulated us on the successful completion of risk assessment on 2nd July’10, had we not been part of this transaction initiation the bank would not keep us in the loop. Throughout all bank communications we as consultants have been in the communication loop, this itself proves our association with this transaction.
The communication of the Director’s meeting with the bank was also done thru the CEO, wherein they met the bankers at their office with us in presence.
Till the transaction was complete, the director never mentioned the incapability of the CEO in his Company transactions; he kept going with the tide with his sweet talks and mean intentions.
Though the CEO approached our concern on behalf of the director for the fund arrangement, the Company never gave us a mandate letter despite repeated mails and telephonic discussions. We decided to go ahead with the arrangement of funds in good faith and sincerity, but the same was not reciprocated by the Company and its Director.
The last and balance funding of this arrangement was made on 24th Feb’11, this information was communicated via mail by the banker. Please note that had we not been the intermediary for this transaction, the bank would not have parted with this information to us. Since inception of this transaction i.e. approaching the bank, negotiating the rates, submission of documents in concurrence with the client, follow-up for the fulfillment of transaction has been carried out diligently by us as consultants; the bank recognizes our presence in this transaction and therefore the communication
The Company is now backing off from paying our rightful dues to us stating that the CEO has no right in the flagship company decisions, but this was not communicated during any of the meetings conduction from May’10 onwards.
Kindly suggest the action I can take against the erring Company.
