Showing posts with label Delhi Art Gallery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Delhi Art Gallery. Show all posts

Tuesday, 21 January 2025

Delhi Art Gallery (DAG) misleads court on M F Husain paintings; seizure ordered

The Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, has ordered the seizure of M F Husain paintings displayed at  Delhi Art Gallery (DAG) owned by Ashish Anand, following a complaint from an advocate Amita Sachdeva. 

On 04.12.2024, “I clicked photos of the paintings displayed at DAG World at 22A, Windsor Place, Connaught Place, New Delhi, and filed a complaint on 09.12.2024 at Parliament Street police station after researching past FIRs….. However, during a visit with the IO on 10.12.2024, the paintings were removed and DAG falsely claimed they were never displayed,” Sachdeva said.


In a damage control statement Ashish Anand said: “Pending an enquiry into a few select works of M F Husain at a recent exhibition, DAG is reviewing the situation and seeking counsel……”


Established in the 1990s in the bylanes of Hauz Khas Village, Delhi Art Gallery claims to have the biggest collection of Modern Indian Art, a claim often doubted by much of the art fraternity.  The gallery has regularly been at the centre of controversies.  In 2011 they had to remove paintings of M F Husain from the India Art Fair (formerly called India Art Summit) held in the capital, and even in 2014 DAG had to remove paintings of Maqbool Fida Husain from its Manifestations catalogue at the insistence of a luxury hotel in Mumbai. In 2015 a police inquiry was ordered against Delhi Art Gallery and its owners in a fake art case. In 2016 it had to withdraw fake Husain’s from a Christie’s auction.


Husain painting withdrawn




Related Posts:

1. Delhi Court reserves decision on FIR against Delhi Art Gallery over controversial Husain paintings, ANI, 21 Jan 2025

Thursday, 2 April 2015

"Not a single work was a fake"

Maher Dadha, CMD of Bid & Hammer, clears the air on the controversial allegations of counterfeits by business rivals that hit the firm’s last auction in Delhi (excerpt from interview to PTI):

In retrospect was it imprudent to have gone ahead with the auction of 'Significant Indian Art' in Delhi last year, despite allegations of counterfeits in the collection?
Not at all. On the contrary it showed the true mettle and credibility of our team who had the confidence to stand by their assessment of the authenticity of the artworks. Also, the participation of the known and serious art collectors at the auction reaffirmed our decision was right.
The truth was that the majority of those who claimed the art works were fake were no experts. Those who apparently had made unverified guesses at the behest of some rivals wanted to stop the auction at any cost and tarnish our goodwill. A case in point is ‘Delhi Art Gallery’ posting 'defamatory material' on its Facebook page and 'orchestrating rumours'. At our last paintings auction in Delhi, their insecurity came through by 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”.
The auction was widely publicised and the catalogue was out months in advance but none of the critics had attended the preview, inspected the documents or clarified their apprehensions with Bid & Hammer’s experts thus raising questions about the legitimacy of their concerns. The fact that most of the allegations were made via the media and on the day of the auction is further evidence of propaganda. Genuine works cannot and should not be simply brandished as fakes by malafide and untenable allegations.


Many auction houses risk discovering fake works - whether it is a Bowring's, a Christies or a Sothebys, your take on this with respect to your auction?
Is there any proof that even a single work was a fake? All the works were authentic. If there had been compelling evidence we would have had no hesitation in accepting our mistake and removing them from auction instead of going in for a public undressing that too in my family's 100th year of enterprise.

What is your opinion on calls for a regulatory body to check fake art?
Very few people in the art market in India today can claim to have a spotless image or the capacity to walk the talk as authenticators. Most have an agenda to earn fame and money even if it entails manipulating the market directly or indirectly.
As such, tainted members already associated with art cartels are the ones who will most likely find their way on such regulatory bodies. Thus we are not in favour of it unless a broad consensus acceptable to each and every fraternity member is arrived at.

What are the best ways of authenticating an art work – authenticating organisations or artist foundations?
There are certain principles and basic procedures that need to be followed to determine whether a work is genuine or questionable.
In the west, authenticating organisations or regulatory bodies or artist foundations have been established and disbanded time and again as they have been found floundering and self-serving more than anything else. Even in India, the talk of regulatory bodies has never taken off because of the vested interest of the people who espouse it.
Artist foundations, run primarily by family members of late artists, are also viewed with suspicion because it is common knowledge that just by virtue of being a family member a person cannot claim art expertise.

Can you comment on the criticism of Susobhan Adhikary, museum curator of Viswa Bharati, questioning a Rabindranath Tagore's artwork at the auction last year?
No expert of standing makes an affirmative comment without inspecting a work and accompanying provenance documents, more so, when another expert of equal, if not greater repute, has vetted the work. Prof Ratan Parimoo who is an authority authenticated our work.

What are the future plans of Bid & Hammer?
We will continue to offer a wide range of rare, exquisite and quality art, antiques, jewellery and collectibles through our auctions. The auction schedule will be announced shortly.

Do you have plans to make Delhi the main base for Bid & Hammer?
We would soon have a representative office in Delhi and by the time of our next auction to be held there we will be on course to making the capital the hub of our paintings and decorative art auctions.

Related Posts:

Saturday, 21 March 2015

Criminal case against Delhi Art Gallery & others for 'fake allegations'

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: