Maharashtra Businessman Loses ₹1.2 Crore to Gurugram's Tesla
A businessman from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar has been defrauded of ₹1.2 crore by a Gurugram-based company falsely using the Tesla name.
The businessman entered a partnership with a Gurugram company named 'Tesla' in 2021.
He deposited ₹1 crore as a security, expecting returns and commissions.
The company failed to return the funds, leading to a police complaint.
A businessman from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra, has reported being defrauded of over ₹1.2 crore by a Gurugram-based company operating under the name 'Tesla.' This incident dates back to October 2021 when Atul Narayan Paygavhan, owner of AP Enterprises, partnered with the company to engage in the sale of batteries, inverters, and solar panels across Maharashtra and Goa.
As part of the agreement, Paygavhan made a security deposit of ₹1 crore, with expectations of a 6% return and a 3.75% commission on sales. Initially, the business appeared to function well, establishing a warehouse in Karodi village. However, as sales began to decline, the partnership was mutually dissolved in December 2024, at which point Paygavhan returned unused stock to the company.
According to a First Information Report (FIR) filed by Paygavhan, the Gurugram company promised to refund the security deposit, outstanding commissions, and the value of the returned stock, amounting to ₹1,22,12,848, by March 2025. When the deadline passed without any funds being returned, Paygavhan took action by filing a police complaint against the company's managing directors, Kavinder Khurana and Vritika Khurana.
The police investigation revealed that in September 2023, the accused allegedly changed the company's name from 'Tesla Power USA Inc.' to 'Tesla Power India Limited.' Authorities suspect this was a strategic move to evade legal responsibilities and misappropriate the funds entrusted to them by Paygavhan.
This case raises significant concerns about business fraud in India, particularly involving companies that misuse established brand names to deceive investors. The outcome of this investigation could have broader implications for regulatory measures in the industry, as well as for the protection of investors against fraudulent practices.
