Bombay High Court reserves verdict in plea by Amazon India against summons to Vice President Amit Agarwal

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the plea filed by Amazon India challenging the criminal complaint and issuance of summons by a Magistrate Court to the company's Vice President Amit Agarwal (Amazon India & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)..The Ulhasnagar Magistrate court had summoned Agarwal in a criminal complaint filed by a Mumbai lawyer Amritpal Singh Khalsa over non-receipt of a product ordered through the e-commerce website..In the plea filed through GNP Legal, Amazon India submitted that it is an e-commerce website which only provides an online platform to the seller to sell their products.It further stated that their Vice President was not involved in the day to day activities of the company hence there was no need to have summoned him..Senior Advocate Shrish Gupte appearing for Amazon, submitted that the Magistrate had not applied his mind while issuing summons.“It is not an empty formality that a complaint is made and you issue process,” Gupte argued..Gupte contended that the complainant had failed to make out an offence of cheating in the complaint and as a consumer, the correct forum to take up the matter would be the consumer court.Clarifying the seller’s stand, Gupte pointed out that there had been confusion regarding the name and address of the complainant.Gupte assured the Court that Amazon is willing to re-attempt delivery of the order which was admittedly worth only ₹4000..The complainant who was appearing in person, said that he had ordered from Amazon previously too and those deliveries took place without any hassles.He further contended that the reason for filing the criminal complaint was that the invoice details, the PAN card details mentioned on it and even the GST number were allegedly bogus..He argued that the company with the seller acted in connivance when they took money from him.He submitted that there were more people who had been duped and cheated and hence the magistrate was correct in applying his mind..After hearing brief arguments, Justice Sandeep K Shinde reserved the plea for orders.