Global Finance is one of Auckland’s leading mortgage brokers has lost a court battle with ex-employee Venugopal Chawdrapu.
Mr Ajay Kumar under his family trust attempt to sue Chawdrapu in the High Court in Auckland last year, to recover just over $211,000 On the surface they seem like a run of the mills Kiwi success story about an immigrant, Mr Ajay Kumar, who against the odds thrived and made a name for himself but for one particular former employee, Venugopal Chawdrapu, it has been a trial by fire.
Mr Chawdrapu’s brother-in-law early 2003, Mr Chawdrapu’s brother-in-law, who was at the time engaged by Mr Kumar to undertake web development work on Global’s website, suggested to Mr Kumar that he should employ Mr Chawdrapu, who had come to New Zealand from India in 2002 and was struggling to find suitable employment.
Mr Kumar followed up the suggestion and Mr Chawdrapu commenced working at Global in April 2003. At the time of his employment Mr Chawdrapu rented at a property in Arabi Street in Sandringham paying rent of $250 per week. In October 2004, the property manager representing the landlord of the property notified the Chawdrapu’s that the property had been put on the market for sale and were advised that once a sale had been arranged they would be given a minimum of six weeks’ notice to vacate the premises, should the purchaser require vacant possession. Mr Chawdrapu went to Mr Kumar with the suggestion to buy the property and renting it back to him and wife.
Kumar however, offered to buy the property as a reward for his loyalty. A deal was struck which involved Kumar taking a 100% mortgage, and Chawdrapu making the loan repayments and other costs. The deal, according to Chawdrapu, would involve Kumar officially handing over the property at a later date. In 2010, the parties agreed to transfer the property. Things went sour when after almost a decade of working with Kumar, Chawdrapu wanted a change in profession. When he rendered in his resignation with the aim to buy a service station.
Kumar did not take his resignation very well. According to Chawdrapu he heard numerous people say that Kumar said that he would make sure that he would hinder all of his future endeavors. The property value had risen to $320,000, and the size of the mortgage had reduced to just over $75,000 in that time.
The Dispute centers on a letter written by Kumar, stating that he had given Chawdrapu and his wife $245,000 to buy the property which Kumar claims was only written to support Chawdrapu’s mortgage application. The Jude rejected Kumar’s argument stating that the advior would not have agreed to provide falase information to banks. “I do not accept that Kumar would be prepared to risk his entire business by signing a letter containing false information that would be provided to the very banks his business relied on.’ The judge said: “It is inconceivable that the defendants would pay an amount to service the loan in excess of the market rent for the apartment for any other reason than they believed that by making the payments at that level and reducing the bank loan they were increasing their interest in the property.“I find that the defendants’ expectation of a beneficial interest in the property was a reasonable one.“While the evidence does not clearly establish whether Kumar expressly told the defendants that he would arrange to buy the property for them, it is nevertheless apparent that Chawdrapu and his wife proceeded on the basis and in the belief that they were the beneficial owners of the property.” Even though Mr Chawdrapu has won this battle he fears that this war Mr Kumar has on with him is far from over. He says he lives with the constant fear of what Mr Kumar will do next.
Mr Chawdrapu speaks very highly of his former employer saying that that Kumar has indeed done a lot for him and in return he gave his hundred percent at work helping Kumar take his business to new heights. He does not relish the fact that things ended so badly with a man he considers his Guru.
Ashfaaq Khan
