At the same time further damning evidence came to light over tactics employed by Johal Dairies to entice customers to its business, and which has exposed the business to the wrath of farmers.
J.N.Dairies customers testified that they had been offered cheap milk by Johal Dairies with one customer offered four weeks milk supply free while another was offered free milk for three months. Such practice is strongly condemned by The National Farmers Union as well as Farmers For Action. In a damning judgment, His Honour Judge David Cooke comprehensively rejected Johal Dairies’ evidence that was principally given by brothers Surbjit (Jitty) and Gurnek Johal, declaring it “highly unconvincing” and “implausible” and that Gurbir Singh stole the invoices as part of a “prearranged plan” organised by Surbjit Johal and was paid “a minimum” of £40,000 for doing so.  
In a statement after the judgment was laid down Jaspal Singh Nijjar, Director and Founder of J.N.Dairies said: “We are delighted to have won this case. We do not have a problem with fair competition, and indeed have been successfully competing with Johal Dairies and other companies for a number of years, but unlawful activity to attack our business will not be tolerated by J.N.Dairies, nor will the law allow anyone to get away with it.
I would like to thank those customers, non customers and independent witnesses who were willing to testify in court about these unacceptable practices, and for supporting us through this difficult episode.” In his summing-up His Honour Judge David Cooke declared that: 
  • The second defendant stole “all the invoices that J.N.Dairies had put out for all of its customers on all of its rounds”, the theft of which was a “prearranged plan” with Surbjit (Jitty) Johal and arrangements “had been made in the course of the previous week during the telephone calls that were shown to have been made from the telephones of Mr Surbjit Johal and Mr Gurnek Johal”


  • The second defendant then went to the Johal Dairies premises and handed the invoices to Surbjit (Jitty) Johal


  • The second defendant was paid by Johal Dairies for his part in this scheme, “in particular by payment of £40,000 and his cost of travel to India. He may well have received or been promised additional benefits”


  • Johal Dairies then made use of the stolen invoices for “the purpose of approaching or negotiating with various customers of J.N.Dairies

 A further hearing is due to take place in July where the Judge will determine what sanctions are to be imposed on Johal Dairies.