A legal row over an oil painting of artist KK Hebbar has painted a rather ugly picture of dealings in the Indian art market.
A legal row over an oil painting of artist KK Hebbar has painted a rather ugly picture of dealings in the Indian art market.
The Bombay High Court recently declined to grant any relief to Rajendra Jain, the London-based proprietor of a Colaba art gallery, Collector’s Paradise, in a suit seeking the appointment of a court receiver for the safekeeping of the Hebbar painting that depicts two peacocks.
Jain’s case was that in February 2005, his gallery had sold the Hebbar painting to Pankaj Gulati, an art collector, for Rs20 lakh. However, Gulati allegedly paid Rs15 lakh in cash and handed over a painting of artist KH Ara for sale to recover the remaining Rs5 lakh. Art watchers say that in cases of high-value paintings, most galleries allow the payment to be made in installments but usually delivery is given only when the entire amount is recovered.
In the present case, Jain claimed that Gulati was given the painting despite the outstanding amount. Jain stated that subsequently, Gulati replaced the Ara painting with other works and finally took back all the paintings, stating that he had found a buyer. He promised to pay the remaining Rs5 lakh but failed to do so.
In March 2006, Jain learnt that Gulati had entered into a contract with the Pundole Art Gallery to export the Hebbar painting to New York for a Sotheby’s auction. The reserved price for the Hebbar painting in the auction was fixed at 60,000 US Dollars (approximately Rs27 lakh).
Jain’s London solicitors sent a notice to Gulati and subsequently Jain filed a suit in New York for recovery of the painting or payment of its value and punitive damages. The NY court temporarily restrained Sotheby’s from selling the painting but the suit was eventually dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since the transaction had taken place in India. Owing to the dispute, Sotheby’s withdrew the painting from the auction.
In 2007, Jain moved the Bombay High Court, which last month refused to grant him relief. Gulati’s lawyer argued that he had purchased the painting for Rs15 lakh, paid in cash. Gulati accused Jain of forging his signature on an ‘agreement’ for the sale of the Hebbar painting.
Dismissing Jain’s notice of motion, Justice SJ Kathawala ruled, “The entire story of the plaintiffs (Jain) pertaining to unpaid price of the said painting prima facie appears to be a creation of the plaintiffs upon realising that the first defendant would make a very good packet by auctioning the said painting in New York”. Jain is likely to file an appeal against the order.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}