Dispelling the rumours that some of the works in its Significant Indian Art auction on 27th June 2014 were fakes, Bid & Hammer (B&H) has filed a suit under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with section 66a of the Information Technology Act, 2000, before Justice M C Nada Gowda, IInd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore, against Ashish Anand of the Delhi Art Gallery (DAG) and others for “defaming” them by making “allegations and insinuations that are clearly and palpably false and render a highly negative image of the works brought to auction by the complainant, despite the highly credible process of authentication. These allegations not only undermine the reputation of the complainant and its directors, experts and employees but also of its consignors such as grand-daughter of the Maharaja of Burdwan, freedom fighter Radha Devi Goenka, actress Namrata Shirodkar and others”.
Buoyed by its recent landmark victory in an art authenticity case, in this suit B&H has dwelt at length about its “formidable reputation as the open market auctioneer of genuine art, artifacts and original paintings of well reputed artists”. It also speaks about the rich legacy of the 1000 year old Dadha family – promoters of the auction house who have been in business for 100 years. “The accused (DAG) have made imputations intentionally and deliberately without clarifications from the complainant to undermine and tarnish the reputation of the complainant in the society,” the defamation suit said. The other accused are Abhilasha Ojha, Kishore Singh and the Times of India newspaper group.
B&H has submitted evidence to establish that in a bid to sabotage its auction and mislead the art collecting fraternity the accused (DAG) continuously posted “offensive material” on social networking sites and made other such undue attempts to tarnish its goodwill and create mistrust among prospective bidders by orchestrating a smear campaign to thwart the auction. Ashish Anand had claimed that 90% of the works were fakes and quoted “The recent development with regard to the authenticity of works by masters at a forthcoming auction has sent alarm bells ringing once again. How do we regulate this? Especially when experts have given their opinion, which is negative, in regard to a very large body of works. We hope people will support our cause and the framing of an art council will attend to all such matters with due urgency”. However, B&H pointed out that as per a news article on 27th June 2014 it was Delhi Art Gallery that had been guilty of selling a fake Rabindranath Tagore work to art collector Vatsal Poddar. Also, Ashish Anand was one of the first few to order a copy of the catalogue when it came out weeks in advance, then why did he wait till the auction day to go to the media asks Ankush Dadha, Director of B&H, as he goes on to state, “A call for a regulatory body spearheaded by a coterie of competitors just on the eve of our auction was in absolute bad taste with the only intent to directly and indirectly scuttle the success of our auction”. He further added, “in any which way such a body will not be tenable as tainted members & art cartels may sit on it to manipulate the market”.
The cause of friction stems from B&H deciding not to accept consignments from DAG after its inaugural auction in January 2008. Even at B&H’s last paintings auction in Delhi DAG and its associates continued their onslaught by making the following statement to a newspaper “Bangalore based Bid & Hammer’s attempt to grab a bite of the lucrative Delhi market has been viewed with something akin to suspicion”, thus demonstrating their insecurity at B&H’s forays in the Delhi art scene. On that occasion DAG had unscrupulously spoken on the provenance of the Ravi Varma works in B&H’s catalogue, a jibe that was silenced by B&H’s rejoinder to the newspaper and followed up by the comprehensive victory in the suit against Kiran Nadar. More recently DAG has also been trying to enter the auction space on its own which has created confusion among buyers due to the conflicts of interest such a model presents – a gallery is meant to be the primary market and an auction house the secondary market and a clear distinction between the two is in the best interest of the buyer. DAG should realize this without trying to compete in an undignified manner to polarize experts and monopolize the market.
Ashish Anand’s tactic of attacking others and claiming that they proliferate fakes is only a defense mechanism to safe-guard his unverified stock hoarding of over 30,000 works, which he has been desperately trying to offload. The numbers are too astounding and to add to the mystery is whether all the works are authentic and carry provenance documents and purchase receipts – thing’s that are easily fabricated by forgers these days. By being seen at auction rooms and picking up a work or two doesn’t imply that the rest of one’s inventory pile can be passed off as genuine. Only a thorough investigation of his transactions can throw light on this.
Nonetheless, this suit might give the much needed peek into the conspiracy theories that plague the art market and consequently coerce art dealers into becoming more transparent.
Rajani Prasanna, daughter of artist K K Hebbar who had also joined hands with Ashish Anand in this smear campaign by questioning the works by her father, very peculiarly did not check the certificate issued by her own sister Rekha Rao. The auction house plans to implead the sisters as well in the suit.
B&H’s competitive pricing has regularly created unease among the dominating local gallery owners who potentially risk losing out on clients that have paid inflated prices for works purchased through them in the past. As a result these gallery owners are ganging-up and indulging in mud slinging. In the higher interest of Indian art, with the objective of quelling such unhealthy attitudes and DAG’s persistent attempts to malign its prowess, B&H, through this suit, has sought for “appropriate action against the accused persons in accordance with law for the offences committed, by punishing them and grant such other further reliefs as are just”.
(Source: http://www.indianshowbiz.com/?p=83498)
Related Posts:
2. Ravi Varma painting not fake: K'taka HC appointed arbitrator | Defamation Suit filed against Delhi Art Gallery | The First Mail | 15 February 2015
3. Due Diligence for all art works put on sale | Business-Standard | 22 March 2015
3. Due Diligence for all art works put on sale | Business-Standard | 22 March 2015
