✦ High Court of India · 13 Jul 2007

CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. M/s.Roja Combines

Case Details High Court of India · 13 Jul 2007

Court

High Court of India

Decided

13 Jul 2007

Bench

J U D G M E N TR.BANUMATHI Single The learned Single The learned

Length

9,275 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure §51 Code of Civil Procedure

Cited in this judgment

AIR 1990 SC 867

For Appellant : Mr.PL.NarayananFor respondents : Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-3 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for R-4 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-5O.S.A.No.127/2007Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor,M/s.7th Channel Communications,No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,Mylapore, Chennai – 4.: Appellant/3rd defendantVs.1.C.Venkataraju,Proprietor,Gita Chitra InternationalNo.1/7, Masilamani Street,T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.2.Kaja Mydeen, Proprietor,M/s.Roja Combines,No.4-A, 10th Avenue,Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83.3.D.Raj Varma, Proprietor,M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises,1307, Ground Floor,No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.4.M/s.S.S.Communications,Plot No.8-2-469,No.5, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad, 500 0345.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories,No.58, Arunachalam Raod,Chennai 93.6.A.P.Film Chambers of CommerceDr.D.Rama Naidu,Building Complex,Film Nagar,Jubilee HillsHyderabad – 500 033: Defendants/Plaintiff6th respondent/Garnishee & defendants 1,2,4 & 5 & third party https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed bythis Court in O.A.No.4060/2006 in C.S.No.741/2006.For Appellant : Mr.Sai KrishnanFor respondents : Mr.PL.Narayanan for R-1 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for R-4 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-5O.S.A.No.131/2007M/s.Ramakrishnan, Proprietor,M/s.S.S.Communications,Plot No.8-2-469,No.5, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad, 500 034: Appellant/PlaintiffVs.1.Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor,M/s.7th Channel Communications,No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,Mylapore, Chennai – 4.2.Kaja Mydeen, Proprietor,M/s.Roja Combines,No.4-A, 10th Avenue,Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83.3.Raaj Varma, Proprietor,M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises,1307, Ground Floor,No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.4.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories,No.58, Arunachalam Raod,Chennai 93.: Respondents/DefendantsAppeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed bythis Court in O.A.No.707/2006 in C.S.No.683/2006.For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev KumarFor respondent : Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-1 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-4O.S.A.No.132/2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M.V.R.S.Prasad11-A, Thiagarayar Road,T.Nagar, Chennai 17.: Appellant/PlaintiffVs.1.Kaja Mydeen, Proprietor,M/s.Roja Combines,No.4-A, 10th Avenue,Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83.2.D.Raj Varma, Proprietor,M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises,1351, Ground Floor,No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.3.Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor,M/s.7th Channel Communications,No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,Mylapore, Chennai – 4.4.Prasad Film Laboratories,No.58, Arunachalam Raod,Chennai 93.5.S.S.Communications,Plot No.8-2-469,No.5, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad, 500 034: Respondents/Defendants Appeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed bythis Court in O.A.No.721/2006 in C.S.No.691/2006.For Appellant : Mr.PL.NarayananFor Respondent : Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-3 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for R-5 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-4O.S.A.No.133/2007M.V.R.S.Prasad11-A, Thiagarayar Road,T.Nagar, Chennai 17.: Appellant/5h defendantVs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1.M/s.7th Channel Communications,rep. By its Proprietor,Mr.Manicam Narayanan,No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,Mylapore, Chennai – 4.2.M/s.Roja Combines,rep. By its Proprietor,Mr.M.Kaja Mydeen,No.4-A, 10th Avenue,Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83.3.M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises,rep. By its Proprietor,Mr.D.Raj Varma,1307, Ground Floor,No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.4.M/s.Sathiyaram Murthy Finance,36/6, Thanikachalam Road,T.Nagar, Chennai 17.5.Mr. V.R.S. Prasad,Plot No.8-2-469Road No.5, Banjara HillsHyderabad 500 034.6.Prasad Film Laboratories,No.58, Arunachalam Raod,Chennai 93.: Respondents/Plaintiff Defendants 1,2,4, 5 & 6Appeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed bythis Court in O.A.No.186/2006 in CS.No.168/2006.For Appellant :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar For respondents :Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-1Mr.PL.Narayanan for R-5Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-6O.S.A.No.136/2007M/s.Ramakrishnan, Proprietor,M/s.S.S.Communications,Plot No.8-2-469,No.5, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad, 500 034: Appellant/plaintiff https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vs.1.Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor,M/s.7th Channel Communications,No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,Mylapore, Chennai – 4.2.Kaja Mydeen, Proprietor,M/s.Roja Combines,No.4-A, 10th Avenue,Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83.3.Raaj Varma, Proprietor,M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises,1307, Ground Floor,No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.4.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories,No.58, Arunachalam Raod,Chennai 93.: DefendantsAppeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed bythis Court in O.A.No.708/2006 in C.S.No.683/2006.For Appellant :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev KumarFor respondents :Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-1Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-4O.S.A.No.344/2006M/s.7th Channel Communications,rep. By its Proprietor,Mr.Manicam Narayanan,No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,Mylapore, Chennai – 4.Appellant/PlaintiffVs.1.M/s.S.S.Communications,Plot No.8-2-469,No.5, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad, 500 034. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.M/s.Roja Combines,rep. By its Proprietor,Mr.M.Kaja Mydeen,No.4-A, 10th Avenue,Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83.3.M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises,rep. By its Proprietor,Mr.D.Raj Varma,1307, Ground Floor,No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.4.M/s.Sathiyaram Murthy Finance,36/6, Thanikachalam Road,T.Nagar, Chennai 17.5.M.V.R.S.Prasad11-A, Thiagarayar Road,T.Nagar, Chennai 17.6.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories,No.58, Arunachalam Raod,Chennai 93.: Respondents/ Defendants Appeal filed against the order dated 23.06.2006 passed bythis Court in A.No.3149/2006 in O.A.No.186/2006 inC.S.No.168/2006.For Appellant :Mr.Sai KrishnanFor respondents :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for R-1M/s.Rugan and Arya for R-2Mr.PL.Narayanan for R3 & R5J U D G M E N TR.BANUMATHI, J.Telugu Version rights of Tamil Version "Vettaiyadu Vilayadu"is the subject matter of these appeals arising out of common orderof the learned Single Judge dated 03.04.2007.2.Entanglement in litigation by persons who claim to haveadvanced monies to the first Defendant - M/s.Roja Combines led tothe filing of four suits. The Interlocutory Applications were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order. All theappeals arise out of common order and since common points arisefor consideration, all the Appeals were heard together anddisposed of by this common Judgment. For convenience, parties arereferred in their original rank in C.S.No.168/2006, which is acomprehensive suit.3.Brief facts in a nutshell are as follows :-The first Defendant - M/s.Roja Combines is the Producerand absolute owner of Tamil Colour Film titled "VettaiyaduVilayadu" [hereinafter referred as 'suit film'] starringKamalhassan and others, directed by Goutham and music by HarrisJeyaraj. The first Defendant appears to have taken finance fromall available resources. As the first Defendant was facingfinancial constraints, the entire production negative rights andsole marketing rights of suit film was transferred in favour of 7thChannel Communications, plaintiff herein, without any restrictionor exception of any areas, for a mutually agreed sum ofRs.14,00,000/- and that transfer was by a letter of arrangementdated 24.10.2005. As a consideration for transfer of negativerights, plaintiff has paid a huge sum as indicated in the saidAgreement dated 24.10.2005. Plaintiff became Negative RightsHolder and sole possession of marketing rights of the suit filmwithout any encumbrance or restriction.4.The present dispute relates to Telugu Version of the film"Vettaiyadu Vilayadu". The first Defendant originally assigned theTelugu Version of the suit film in favour of the second Defendant- Proprietor of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises [for short,SVCE] under an Agreement dated 05.05.2005. In the letter ofarrangement between plaintiff and the first Defendant dated24.10.2005, Telugu Version of the suit film was also transferredto the plaintiff. The first Defendant has assured to take up theresponsibility of marketing the Telugu rights for a sum ofRs.2,25,00,000/- onbehalf of the plaintiff Channel. The Agreementin favour of D-2 – SVCE was cancelled by a subsequent Agreementdated 24.11.2005 with the payment of a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- tothe second Defendant. Copy rights of Telugu Version of suit filmwas assigned to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration ofRs.2,30,00,000/- by a separate Agreement dated 17.12.2005.5.Case of the plaintiff is that the first Defendant assignedthe right of the Telugu Version of suit film in favour of theplaintiff under an Agreement dated 17.12.2005 for a totalconsideration of Rs.2,30,00,000/- and therefore, the plaintiff isthe absolute Copyright Holder of Telugu Version of the suit film.Plaintiff is said to have arranged for a payment of Rs.29,00,000/-payable by the first Defendant to the second Defendant forcancellation of the prior Agreement. Through 6th DefendantLaboratory, plaintiff has learnt that Defendants 3 to 5 also claim https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said Copyright. Asserting Telugu Version rights and allegingthat Defendants are laying claim over the suit film, plaintiff hasfiled suit for Permanent Injunction for declaration that he is thesole and absolute owner of the copyright pertaining to the TeluguVersion of the suit film and also for mandatory injunction todirect 6th Defendant Laboratory to deliver prints of Telugu Versionto the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also filed applications forTemporary Injunction directing the 6th Defendant Laboratory todeliver the prints of Telugu Version of suit film and to restrainthe Defendants from interfering with copyright of the TeluguVersion.6.The Film Producer - first Defendant did not enterappearance. All other Defendants have hotly contested the matter.7.Upon consideration of the rival contentions and materialson record, the learned Single Judge has held that the plaintiffhas established his bonafides in entering an Agreement on17.12.2005 with the producer - the first Defendant and that therights of the plaintiff has to be protected and on those findings,granted temporary injunction, allowing O.A.No.186/2006. However,observing that "there are other persons who claim to have advancedmonies to the producer and got the copyrights assigned in theirfavour", the learned Single Judge declined interim mandatoryinjunction and dismissed application O.A.No.185/ 2006. As againstdismissal of mandatory injunction, plaintiff has filedO.S.A.No.80/2007. As against grant of Interim Injunction inO.A.No.186/2006, D-4 and D-5 have filed O.S.A.No.135/2007 andO.S.A.No.133/2007.8.Case of the second Defendant [SVCE] in nutshell as apparentfrom counter filed for the first time in appeal, is as follows :-The first Defendant had entered into an Agreement withhim on 05.05.2005, assigning all Telugu Dubbing Rights/ remakingrights with absolute rights over Telugu Version of the said moviefor exhibition and distribution all over the world, exceptingTamil Nadu and Kerala States, for a valuable consideration ofRs.2,00,00,000/-, out of which, the second Defendant paid anadvance to the first Defendant an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- at thetime of signing the Agreement. Further case of the secondDefendant is that it was accepted that he would directly pay theamount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to M/s.Sathiya Rengiah [father of D-5]and to Director – Goutham Menon, an amount of Rs.80,000/- onbehalf of the first Defendant. After assigning the Telugu Versionrights to D-2, the first Defendant did not have any further rightsand D-2 had become absolute owner of the Telugu version of thesuit film. Even as per the Cancellation Agreement, D-1 ought tohave paid an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- and further amount ofRs.5,00,000/-. D-2 ought to have organized a meeting on 29.11.2005between D-1 and D-4, to whom he had sold away Overseas, Satellite, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Video, Cable and Television Rights. D-2 organised a meeting withD-4 but D-1 was unable to buy back rights Satellite and overseasrights over the Telugu Version of the said movie that was sold toD-4 under a valid Agreement. D-1 was also unable to obtain andhand over letters of confirmation from D-6, releasing D-2 from allliabilities on account of the said movie. Owing to the above twofactors, Cancellation Agreement dated 24.11.2005 could not havebeen given effect to and is deemed to be cancelled. D-2 hasincurred huge expenditure on account of Telugu Version of the saidmovie and as against the second Defendant, plaintiff is notentitled to any relief.9.The second Defendant had not filed counter statement in thetrial Court. Pointing out that though D-2 has signed CancellationAgreement, D-2 has not only turned volte face against theCancellation Agreement but had also created documents in favour ofplaintiff in C.S.No.741/2006, the learned Single Judge has heldthat the validity of the Cancellation Agreement dated 24.11.2005vis-a-vis the other documents could be gone into only at the timeof trial when the parties adduce evidence.10. Case of D-4 – S.S. Communications [plaintiff in C.S.No.683/2006] :-According to D-4, he has entered into an Agreement with D-2 -SVCE on 09.05.2007 wherein D-2 has transferred the Telugu Versionof the film’s Satellite, Video, Cable, Doordarshan, DTH, Internet,VCD, DVD and electronic media rights [for brevity, referred asSatellite rights] in respect of Telugu Cinema “Mahadheera” [TamilVersion of “Vettayadu Vilayadu”]. As per clause 5 of the saidAgreement, D-4 will have rights for a period of thirty years onthe satellite rights and D-4 has agreed to pay a sum ofRs.22,50,000/-. Out of the consideration, D-4 has paid a sum ofRs.12,57,000/- for the said film “Mahadeera”. D-4 has also enteredinto an Overseas Agreement with D-2 for the said film “Mahadeera”by Agreement dated 23.12.2005, wherein D-2 has transferred theoverseas rights to D-4 and the same is subsisting. Without theknowledge of D-4, D-2 had entered into Cancellation Agreement withthe plaintiff and the same is binding on D-4.11.Further case of D-4 is that it has spent huge amount inadvertising and promotion of Telugu Version of the film. Theappellant is still the exclusive owner of the satellite rights andoverseas rights of suit film and D-4 prays for TemporaryInjunction restraining the plaintiff from alienating the satelliterights and overseas rights. According to D-4, plaintiff knew fullywell that there was an existing assignment for the Telugu Versionand therefore, the question of 7th Channel having any rights overthe Telugu Version cannot be permitted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. Impugned findings in respect of D-4's claim:-The learned Single Judge held that D-4 is only an agreementholder from the original assignee – SVCE and therefore D-4 has torise or fall only on the strength of the Original Agreement dated05.05.2005 between the Producer and D-2. The learned Judge hasfurther observed that Agreement dated 09.05.2005 does not containa clause fixing consideration for the Agreement and the saidAgreement without consideration is void. In so far as theAgreement dated 23.12.2005 relating to overseas rights, thelearned Judge has held that it is subsequent in point of time tothe Cancellation Agreement dated 24.11.2005 and hence doubted itsvalidity. On those findings, the learned Single Judge dismissedthe applications O.A.Nos.707/2006 and 708/2006, which arechallenged in O.S.A.Nos.131/2007 and 136/2007.13. Case of D-5/plaintiff in C.S.No.691 of 2006 is asfollows :-D-5 claims to have originally entered into an Agreement dated28.04.2004 with D-1 for lease-hold right of Tamil feature filmstarring Kamalhassan directed by Goutham Menon on outright basisfor the entire areas of North Arcot, South Arcot and Chengalpat,popularly known in the film industry as "N.S.C. Area" for aconsideration of Rs.60,00,000/-, within a month of the aforesaidAgreement. Another Agreement dated 18.05.2004 is said to have beenentered into between D-5 and D-1, assigning dubbing and re-makingof Tamil feature film titled "SIPPAI", starring Kamalhassan andothers, directed by Goutham Menon and music scored by HarrisJeyaraj for a consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-.14.Further case of D-5 is that D-2 on learning from plaintiffthat Telugu Dubbed Version of the film stands assigned to D-5, D-2had approached for negotiation for relinquishing the assignmentmade in favour of D-5 upon receipt of Rs.One crore. D-2 has statedthat he has to fund the producer to the tune of Rs.1.25 crores forcompleting the production and that in respect of Rs.One crorepayable to D-5, he would do so at the time of release of the saidfilm in Telugu. The first defendant had issued a letter on06.05.2005 regarding the Agreement to pay Rs.One Crore through D-2directly to D-5 prior to the release of the film. By letter dated06.10.2005, D-2 had confirmed the existence of the ContingentContract i.e. assignment of suit film continuing in the name of D-5 until payment of Rs.One crore. Acting upon the said letter dated06.10.2005, the sixth defendant lab had issued Lab ConfirmationLetter dated 07.11.2005. The said lab letter is in favour of D-5and one Sathyarama Murthy [who is not a party to any of theproceeding]. According to D-5, copyright of the suit filmcontinues to vest in D-5. The Cancellation Agreement between D-1and D-2 would not affect D-5’s copyright in Telugu Version of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suit film. Further case of D-5 is that the lab letter is in favourof D-5 and is still operative and the lab cannot release printsto the plaintiff until the due amount is paid to D-5.15.D-5 filed C.S.No.691/2006 for declaration that he is theabsolute copyright owner of the Telugu Version of the suit filmand also for Permanent Injunction.16. Impugned findings in respect of D-5's claim :-Insofar as D-5's claim is concerned, the learned Single Judgehas held that though both the Agreements indicate payment ofconsideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively,consideration appears to be on adjustment towards the amountpayable by the producer in respect of the earlier productiontitled "JANA" and the pleadings in the plaint run contrary to therecitals contained in both Agreements. Insofar as the lab letterproduced by D-5 is concerned, the learned Single Judge held thatthe lab letter is not in response to the letter from D-1 but isonly in response to the letter of the first Assignee – D-2. It wasfurther held that validity of the claim of D-5 on the basis of labletter dated 17.11.2005 has to be tested in the light of other labletter dated 07.01.2006 filed by D-4 in C.S.No.683/2006 and onthose findings, the learned Single Judge dismissed the applicationO.A.No.721/2006, which is challenged in O.S.A.No.132/2007.17. Case of Gita Chitra International [GCI] - Plaintiff inC.S.No.741/2006 :-Case of GCI is based upon payment of Rs.15,00,000/- allegedlymade by him to D-2 - SVCE. Suit C.S.No.741/2006 was filed forrecovery of the suit amount of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interesttotalling to Rs.20,10,000/-. In O.A.No. 765/2006, GCI prayed forinjunction restraining the respondents from dealing withcopyrights of Telugu Version version of the film. InA.No.4060/2006, GCI prayed for restraining the Garnishee viz.,Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce from releasing or partingwith an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- deposited with them.18. Findings in respect of GCI's Claim :- Observing that GCI's claim is only a money claim,O.A.No.765/2006 was dismissed. A.No.4060/2006 was disposed of withdirection to the Garnishee - Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber ofCommerce to deposit an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- in any one of theNationalized Bank for a period of three years. Aggrieved againstsuch direction in A.No.4060/2006, GCI has filed O.S.A.No.125/2007.19. Contentions of parties :-The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has mainly contendedthat when the learned Single Judge has held that the plaintiff hasproved the prima facie case, the Court ought to have grantedmandatory injunction since the plaintiff has advanced huge amounttowards Telugu Version. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further argued that when the second Defendant has consciouslyentered into the Cancellation Agreement, suppressing the same, thesecond Defendant has moved Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber ofCommerce, which was not taken note of by the learned Single Judge.It was further submitted that Defendants are wantonly blocking therelease of the film by making false claims over the copyrights onthe strength of certain make-believe documents. It was urged thatif the film is not released and if kept idle, the film would looseits marketing potential and the plaintiff would be subjected toirreparable loss and hardship.20.In the trial court though the 2nd defendant has notexplained his stand, in this appeal, the 2nd defendant has filedhis counter affidavit and contested the appeals. The secondDefendant though he has not filed counter affidavit in the trialCourt, has filed counter affidavit and contested the appeals. Thecontention of the second Defendant is that he has incurred hugeexpenditure onbehalf of the Telugu Version of the suit film andthat the Cancellation Agreement dated 24.11.2005 could not havebeen given effect to. Further contention of D-2 is that he wasincurring huge expenditure on account of the Telugu Version and asper the Agreement between D-1 and D-2, both Tamil Version, underthe title “Vettayadu Vilayadu” and Telugu Version, under the Title“Mahadheera”, are to be released simultaneously around the firstweek of April 2006. It is the further case of D-2 that he hasspent huge sums on the project to the tune of aboutRs.59,00,000/-. The second Defendant has alleged collusion betweenplaintiff and the first Defendant.21.Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel has submittedthat the second Defendant has assigned the Satellite, Video, Cableand Doordarshan and other T.V. and Electronic Media and overseasrights in respect of the Telugu Version "Mahadeera", which wasacted upon on the strength of the Agreement dated 05.05.2005 and23.12.2005 and that the fourth Defendant is the exclusive owner ofthe said rights and is also entitled to exploit the same. Thelearned Senior Counsel further urged that D-4 is still theexclusive owner of the satellite rights of the Telugu Version andhe has already spent huge amount on advertising and on promotionof Telugu Version of the film.22.Drawing our attention to various correspondence, thelearned Counsel for the 5th Defendant, Mr.P.L.Narayanan, hassubmitted that the second Defendant, who is the Telugu Producerhad issued letter in favour of the 5th Defendant confirming thepayment of Rs.1,00,00,000/- at the time of release of TeluguVersion of the suit film. The learned Counsel further submittedthat relinquishment of the copyright of Telugu Dubbed Version ofthe suit film will take into effect only upon payment ofconsideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the 5th respondent and till https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such time, copyright of the suit film continues to be with the 5thDefendant. It was further urged that to overcome this difficulty,the producer - 1st Defendant had colluded with the plaintiff infiling the suit C.S.No.168/2006. The learned counsel further urgedthat the plaintiff cannot by-pass the pre-existing commitments ofD-1 since the plaintiff has only stepped into the shoes of D-1. Itwas further urged that D-2 has entered into a Contingent Contracton 05.05.2005 subject to the payment of Rs.One crore to D-5 andthe plaintiff is bound to honour that commitment to D-5. Placingmuch reliance upon the Lab Letter, it was submitted that the LabLetter dated 17.11.2005 would go a long way in strengthening D-5’scase.23.We have given thoughtful consideration to the rivalcontentions and carefully examined the materials on record and theimpugned Order. The point falling our consideration is whether inthe light of the well settled principles for grant of temporaryinjunction whether plaintiff has made out a prima facie case ofhis rights of Telugu Version of the suit film and balance ofconvenience lies in his favour and whether the learned SingleJudge was not justified in granting prohibitory injunction. Yetanother question also falls for our consideration. "By postponingthe release of the Telugu Version of the suit film, would not thesuit film would loose its marketing potential, causing loss to theparties ?".24.Before dealing with the question, we may first considerthe principles governing grant of injunction. At the stage ofdeciding the application for temporary injunction, the Court isnot required to go into the merits of the case in detail. What theCourt has to examine is :-(i)The plaintiff has a prima facie case to go fortrial;(ii)Protection is necessary from the species ofinjuries known as irreparable before his legal right canbe established; and(iii)That the mischief of inconvenience likely toarise from withholding injunction will be greater thanwhat is likely to arise from granting it.25.The principle of law relating to temporary injunctionduring pendency of the suit is well recognized in the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar v.Prahlad Singh [AIR 1993 SC276]. The relevant portions of the observations of the SupremeCourt in the said case are as under :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ".. It is settled law that the grant of injunction isa discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject tothe Court satisfying that :(1)there is a serious disputed question to be triedin the suit and that a act, on the facts before the Court,there is probability of his being entitled to the reliefasked for by the plaintiff/Defendant.(2)the Court's interference is necessary to protectthe party from the species of injury. In other words,irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legalright would be established at trial; and(3)that the comparative hardship or mischief orinconvenience which is likely to occur from withholdingthe injunction will be greater than that would be likelyto arise from granting it". 26.The Supreme Court further observed :-".. Prima facie case is not to be confused with primafacie title which has to be established, on evidence atthe trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial questionraised, bonafide, which needs investigation and a decisionon merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie caseby itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Courtfurther has to satisfy that non-interference by the Courtwould result in 'irreparable injury' to the party seekingrelief and that there is no other remedy available to theparty except one to grant injunction and he needsprotection from the consequence of apprehended injury ordispossession of apprehended injury or dispossession.Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there mustbe no physical possibility of repairing the injury, butmeans only that the injury must be a material one, namelyon that cannot be adequately compensated by way ofdamages. The third condition also is that 'the balance ofconvenience' must be in favour of granting injunction. TheCourt while granting or refusing to grant injunctionshould exercise sound judicial discretion to find theamount of substantial mischief or injury which is likelyto be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refusedand compare it with that it is likely to be caused to theother side if the injunction is granted. If on weighingcompeting possibility or probabilities of likelihood ofinjury and if the Court considers that pending the suit,the subject-matter should be maintained in status quo, aninjunction would be issued. Thus the Court has to exerciseits sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit".In subsequent paragraph, the Supreme Court further observed:-" .. The phrases 'prima facie case', "balance ofconvenience" and 'irreparable loss' are not rhetoricphrases for incantation, but words of width andelasticity, to meet myriad situations presented by man'singenuity in given facts and circumstances, but alwaysis hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion tomeet the ends of justice ..."27.The grant of temporary injunction is purely adiscretionary exercise of power by the Court. The power has to beexercised by the Court fairly and equitably. Whenever an appeal isfiled against an order granting or refusing to grant an order ofinjunction, the Appellate Court is required to see only as towhether the trial Court has exercised the discretion judiciouslyand has taken into consideration facts which are relevant for anorder of temporary injunction. The mere fact that an AppellateCourt would come to a different conclusion is not a ground forinterfering with the order passed by the trial Court, granting orrefusing to grant an order of temporary injunction. Of course, inexceptional cases where it is shown that it is going to causeirreparable loss or failure of justice, it is open to theAppellate Court to consider the question of issuing TemporaryInjunction on being satisfied that the findings are unreasonableand interest of justice calls for interference.28.Bearing in mind the settled position of law, we may nowproceed to consider whether the impugned Order calls for anyinterference. This Court has to examine the order of the learnedtrial Court to find out whether there is any perversity oromission to appreciate all materials on the record in exercisingthe discretion in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 29.In all the applications, the contesting parties havestaked claims to Telugu Version of the suit film and are claimingright to the Telugu Version. There is no denying that on05.05.2005, the first Defendant has entered into an Agreement withthe second Defendant assigning Telugu Version rights of the suitfilm. As consideration for the grant, the second Defendant hasagreed to pay a consolidated royalty of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, out ofwhich, the second Defendant has paid Rs.20,00,000/- as advance atthe time of signing of the Agreement. On 24.10.2005, the firstDefendant had transferred the production and marketing rights ofthe suit film for a mutually agreed sum of Rs.14,00,00,000/-. Evenin the said Agreement dated 24.10.2005, the first Defendant hadtaken up the responsibility of marketing the Telugu rightsonbehalf of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,25,00,000/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30.By the Cancellation Agreement dated 24.11.2005, Agreementin favour of the second Defendant was cancelled. Consideration ofthe Cancellation Agreement of the grant of Telugu Version rightswas sum of Rs.29,00,000/-, paid by way of Banker's cheque dated24.11.2005 and Rs.5,00,000/- towards the interest and profit forthe cancellation of the Agreement. Under Clause 5 of the saidCancellation Agreement, the second Defendant has agreed to bringthe party to cancel the said Agreement entered by the secondDefendant with the said third party. Thereafter, D-1 had assignedTelugu Version rights to the plaintiff for a consideration ofRs.2,30,00,000/- by agreement dated 17.12.2005. Clause 2 of theAgreement indicates payment of advance sum of Rs.29,00,000/-,which was paid by way of Banker's cheque in favour of D-2 – SVCE.Under the said Agreement, it was further agreed that the plaintiffshall have the ownership of Video, Audio, Satellite and Televisionrights, DVD, VCD, LD. The period of expiry of the Telugu Versionwas agreed for a period of thirty years.31.Pursuant to the said Agreement, the first Defendant hadwritten letter [dated 17.12.2005] to the 6th Defendant lab,informing the lab about the transfer of the entire Telugu Versionin favour of the plaintiff and also informing about theCancellation Agreement dated 24.11.2005. That apart, as per theterms of the said agreement, plaintiff has also paid a further sumof Rs.60,00,000/- to the 1st defendant by way of Cheque No.057534drawn on the HSBC dated 17.12.2005 in favour of D-1. The balanceamount of Rs.1,41,00,000/- is to be paid by the plaintiff directlyto Goutham Menon, Director of the film. Referring to the Telugurights of the suit film and seeking intervention of South IndianFilm Chamber of Commerce [SIFCC], plaintiff had sent a letterdated 02.06.2006 to SIFCC, which forwarded it to Andhra PradeshFilm Chamber of Commerce [APFCC]. In the meanwhile, D-2 filed acomplaint before the APFCC. Enquiring into the strength of thecomplaint of D-2, Conciliation Sub-Committee of APFCC has passedits award dated 31.03.2006, requesting D-1 – Producer to refundRs.34,00,000/- to D-2 - SVCE. Aggrieved with the award passed byAPFCC, D-2 - SVCE has preferred appeal to the Tribunal Committeeof APFCC. By that time, since the matter has become sub-judice,hence the appeal before the Tribunal did not proceed further andthe matter is said to be pending.32.The facts and circumstances and the materials on recordwould clearly show that the plaintiff has established a primafacie case. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that theplaintiff has proved his prima facie case and his right has to beprotected. We are of the considered view that the plaintiff havinginvested huge amount, it would be quite unjust and unequitable todeny temporary injunction. In the event of refusal of injunction,and if others exploit the film, the loss suffered by the plaintiff https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would not be ascertainable. On the other hand, if TemporaryInjunction is granted in favour of plaintiff in respect of TeluguVersion even if the other contesting parties ultimately succeed,loss suffered by the Defendants could easily be ascertained.33.As noted earlier, the second Defendant has not contestedthe matter in the trial Court. Only in the appeal, D-2 has filedcounter affidavit contending that plaintiff has requested him todirectly pay the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to one M/s.SathiyaRengiah on or before the release of the suit film andRs.80,00,000/- to Goutham Menon director of the movie towards theproduction expenses of the said movie and he was publishing thesame under the title "Mahadeera" by incurring huge expenses. It isthe further case of D-2 that as per the Cancellation Agreement,plaintiff ought to have paid an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- andfurther amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and D-2 ought to have organized ameeting on 25.11.2005 between the plaintiff and D-4 –S.S.Communications in respect of overseas [theatrical], Satellite,Video, Cable T.V. and all other electronic and Television MediaRights over the Telugu Version. According to D-2, though themeeting was organized, plaintiff was unable to get back rightsover the Telugu Version of the suit film and the CancellationAgreement was not given effect to and the Cancellation Agreementitself must be deemed to have been cancelled.34.Plaintiff’s case is assailed contending that plaintiff hasnot produced any lab letter. No doubt, plaintiff has not producedany lab letter. But the fact remains that the plaintiff hasrequested the lab, by letter dated 17.12.2005, to issue a labletter, enclosing the letter of the Producer. Plaintiff’sdocuments – Agreements and other documents cannot be brushed asideon the ground of absence of Lab Letter.35.Mr.PL.Narayanan, learned counsel for D-5 has submittedthat D-4 and D-5 have made out a prima facie case for grant ofinjunction in their favour and if temporary injunction is granted,D-5 would certainly ensure the release of the film. Whileconsidering the balance of convenience of parties and comparativeinconvenience of both parties, we find that the equitable reliefof temporary injunction could be granted only to the plaintiff. Asnoted earlier, at the most, D-5, prima facie has a lien over theprints of Telugu Version. The contention that D-4 and D-5 havemade out a prima facie case for grant of injunction isunacceptable.36.Refuting the averments, onbehalf of the plaintiff, it wascontended that as contemplated under the Cancellation Agreement,the plaintiff had taken Demand Draft for Rs.29,00,000/- on24.11.2005 and the Cancellation Agreement was very well actedupon, as is evidenced by the proceedings before the SIFCC and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ APFCC. It is stated that it is the responsibility of the SVCE tocancel the said Agreement entered into by D-2 with third party.Clause 5 categorically states that cancellation is to be carriedout positively on 25.11.2005 and it is the responsibility of SVCEto bring the party concerned for cancellation of Satellite rightof the Telugu Version. We fully endorse the views of the learnedSingle Judge that contention of D-2 that cancellation was notacted upon, could be gone into only at the time of trial whenparties adduce evidence. Materials on record show that theplaintiff had acted in furtherance of the Agreement between himand the plaintiff dated 17.12.2005, assigning Telugu rights. Weare satisfied that the plaintiff's claim is founded on goodgrounds and there is serious question to be tried in the suit. Asthe plaintiff has proved prima facie case and balance ofconvenience is also in his favour, we find that the learned SingleJudge had rightly passed the order of temporary injunction. Weendorse the views taken by the learned Single Judge that theplaintiff's copyright of the Telugu Version as per the Agreementdated 17.12.2005 is to be protected. Consequently, the appealsO.S.A.Nos.135 and 133/2007 are dismissed.37. O.S.A.No.344/2006 :As against the grant of exparte order of interim injunctionin O.A.No.186/2006, D-4 has filed A.No.3149/2006 for vacating theinterim injunction, which was allowed on 23.06.2006. Aggrieved bythe same, plaintiff has filed this appeal. Since we are confirmingthe order of grant of temporary injunction in favour of theplaintiff, order in A.No.3149/2006 has to be reversed and thisappeal is allowed.38.Contentions of D-4 – S.S.Communications – O.S.A.Nos.131/ 2007and 136/2007 :-S.S.Communications claims that D-2 - SVCE has entered into anAgreement with it on 09.05.2005 for assigning Satellite video,cable, Doordharshan, Pay T.V., D.T.H., Internet, VCD, DVD, Rightsof the Telugu Version of the film. D-4 – S.S.C. also claims tohave entered into an Agreement dated 23.12.2005 with D-2 andobtained assignment of overseas rights for a consideration ofRs.1,35,000/-. Though Satellite right is said to have beenassigned, no consideration is indicated in the said Agreement. Thelearned Single Judge doubted the correctness of the Agreementdated 09.05.2005 finding that there is no recital in the body ofthe Agreement about consideration, for assigning the Satelliteright, D-4 – S.S.C. agreed to make a total payment ofRs.22,50,000/-. We feel that the learned Single Judge was notfactually correct in saying that the body of the Agreement doesnot contain any clause relating to consideration. Clause (5) ofthe agreement refers to the consideration of Rs.22,50,000/- out ofwhich an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- to be paid as advance and thebalance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid to the Laboratory at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the time of release of the film. The learned Senior CounselMr.AR.L.Sundaresan has submitted that D-4 has paid a sum ofRs.12,57,000/- for the film “Mahadheera” and has also spent hugeamount towards advertisement and promotion of the film. Nodocument had been produced evidencing such payment ofRs.12,57,000/-. Like wise, contention that D-4 has already spenthuge amount on advertising and on promotion of Telugu Version ofthe film is unsupported by any material. However, we do not deemit necessary to express any views at this stage and the same couldbe gone into at the time of trial when parties adduce evidence.39.As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, D-4 S.S.Cclaims through D-2 – SVCE. When the original Agreement in favourof D-2 dated 05.05.2005 had been cancelled by the CancellationAgreement, D-4 could claim no better right. However, if D-4establishes payment of consideration, right of D-4 has to beprotected. As noted earlier, as per clause 5 of the CancellationAgreement, it was the responsibility of SVCE to bring the partyconcerned [S.S.C.] to Chennai on 25.11.2005 for the saidcancellation of the satellite right of the Telugu Version.According to D-2, in the meeting on 25.11.2005, the Producer wasunable to get back the satellite right of the Telugu Version. Therecitals in Clause 5 of the Cancellation Agreement indicates thatit is the responsibility of D-2 – SVCE to cancel the SatelliteAgreement. As per Cl.8 of the Agreement dated 09.05.2005, theassignees [D-4 SSC] can telecast the film by any means likesatellite rights only after six months from the first release ofthe film in theatres. Until then, the assignees are permitted touse the songs and clippings of the film without any restriction.Having regard to the respective claims of the parties, we deem itfit to direct the parties to maintain status quo till the disposalof the suit in respect of Satellite, video, cable, Doordarshan,Pay TV, DTH, Internet, VCD, DVD and overseas rights of the TeluguVersion of the film. Accordingly, order of the learned SingleJudge in OA Nos.707/2006 and 708/2006 are modified and OSA Nos.131and 136/2007 are partly allowed.40.D-4 – S.S.C. mainly relies upon the lab letter dated07.01.2006 to show that D-2 – SVCE had intimated the laboratory ofthe assignment of the World Satellite Rights in favour of S.S.C.The learned Single Judge has doubted the validity of the letterfor two reasons – (i)Lab is said to have issued letter dated07.01.2006 in response to the letter of request by the OriginalAssignee on 09.11.2005, after a gap of two months and there isunexplained delay; (ii)the lab letter refers to SVCE as theProducer of the film despite the fact that SVCE is only theoriginal assignee and not the Producer. The learned Senior CounselMr.AR.L.Sundaresan has submitted that D-4 has parted with moneyand that he has spent huge amount on advertising and on promotionof the Telugu Version and D-4 has got a prima facie right and thelearned Single Judge ought to have granted injunction restrainingthe plaintiff from alienating the Satellite and overseas right. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Whether D-4 is an assignee for consideration and whether his rightremains unaffected even after Cancellation Agreement could be goneinto only at the time of trial.41.The fourth Defendant has prayed for Temporary Injunctionrestraining the 7th channel from alienating the Satellite, Video,Cable, Doordarshan, Pay TV etc. and overseas right. It is commonknowledge that in Cinema Trade, release of any picture throughSatellite, Doordarshan etc. and overseas would be of considerableimportance both to secure success of the film and also to earnprofit.42.Having regard to the views taken by us in appointing theplaintiff as Party Receiver, any right of D-4 could be safeguardedby issuing appropriate directions which we would shortly refer to.43. Right claimed by D-5 :-D-5 – V.R.S.Prasad, Appellant in O.S.A.No.132/2007 claims tohave originally entered into an Agreement dated 28.04.2004 with D-1 for lease-hold right of the Tamil Feature Film Production No.---on outright basis for entire areas of North Arcot, South Arcot andChengalpat, popularly known in the film industry as "N.S.C. Area".Consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- is stated in Clause (2) of theAgreement. Within a month of the aforesaid Agreement, anotherAgreement dated 18.05.2004 is said to have been entered intobetween D-1 and D-5 for dubbing and re-making of Tamil featurefilm titled "SIPPAI" starring Kamalahassan and others, directed byGoutham Menon and music scored by Harris Jeyaraj. Clause (2) ofthis Agreement mentions a consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-. Thoughin the Agreement clause, consideration is said to have been paid,materials on record clearly show that those Agreements might havebeen entered into for settling the outstanding dues to be paid bythe Producer [D-1] to D-5 Prasad and Associate Firms against thepicture "JANA", starring Ajith, Sneha and others.44.The Agreement dated 28.04.2004 does not contain the titleof the Tamil Feature Film but only mentions "Production No.......Color Scope" featuring Kamlahassan and others direction by GoutamMenon. The other Agreement dated 18.05.2004 is in respect ofassignment of Telugu Dubbing and re-making Agreement of Tamilfeature Film "SIPPAI". That the Agreements were executed for theoutstanding dues payable by D-1 towards earlier production titled"JANA" and the adjustment of the amount payable is made clear inthe counter affidavit filed by D-5. In the counter affidavit, D-5has also indicated that D-1 had issued demand Promissory Notes andcheques in his favour for the outstanding dues and payable andthat D-5 insisted for assignment of Telugu Dubbing Version of"SIPPAI" and Danush starer "DEVADAIYAI KANDENE", an on goingproduction. According to D-5, Production No.18 came to be named as“SIPPAI” for a very short while and subsequently as “Vettayadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vilayadu” and all the correspondence would only confirm that D-5has rights over the Telugu Version of suit film. At this stage, itis not possible to express any views on the merits of thecontentions put-forth by D-5. Suffice it to note that there is nocorresponding Lab letter pursuant to the Agreements dated28.04.2004 and 18.05.2004. It cannot be said that D-5 hasestablished a prima facie case.45.On 06.05.2005, the first Defendant is said to have sent acommunication to M/s.Sathiya Rengiah [father of D-5] stating thathe had asked Raj Varma – D-2 to pay Rs.100,00,000/- directly toM/s.Sathiya Rengiah, and that amount will be paid to him beforethe release of the suit film. Case of D-5 is that assignment infavour of SVCE was only conditional and that the assignment shallhave effect in favour of the second Defendant only upon the latterpaying a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, as the letter of confirmationdated 06.05.2005 was jointly executed and addressed to D-5'sfather's name. Mr.P.L.Narayanan, learned counsel for D-5 hasforcibly contended that D-2 has entered into a ContingentAgreement on 05.05.2005 subject to payment of Rs.One crore to D-5,which cancelled the earlier Agreement in favour of D-5 dated18.05.2004. When that being so, it was contended that D-5 is notbound by the Cancellation Agreement between plaintiff and D-2,since he is not a party to it and in any event, plaintiff cannotby-pass pre-existing commitment of D-1 to D-5, since the plaintiffhas only stepped into the shoes of D-1. Therefore, it is thecontention of D-5 that cancellation of the Agreement between D-1and D-2 in respect of Telugu Version and subsequent Agreementbetween the first Defendant and the plaintiff on 17.12.2005 wouldnot in any way affect D-5's copyright of the Telugu Version of thesaid film and that the lab letter in his favour is still operativeand therefore, the lab cannot release the prints to the plaintiff.46.Though the letter was said to have been sent on 06.05.2005to D-5's father about payment of Rs.One crore, there was nocorresponding lab letter at that time. Only on 06.10.2005, SVCE issaid to have sent a letter to the lab informing about thefinancial arrangement with D-5. On 06.11.2005, SVCE has sent aletter to D-5 confirming its commitment for payment ofRs.1,00,00,000/- and subsistence of lien in favour of D-5 for thesaid amount of Rs.One Crore. In response to the letter dated06.10.2005, lab has issued a letter dated 17.11.2005, confirmingthe right of lien of D-5 and one S.Sathya Ramamurthy. Submittingthat D-6 Laboratory is one of the internationally celebratedLaboratory, enjoying highest reputation in the country, learnedcounsel Mr.P.L.Narayanan has contended that it is not the case ofthe plaintiff that the laboratory has acted fraudulently inissuing the lab letter. There is no denying that lab latter infavour of D-5 is of great value, substantiating D-5’s case i.e. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said lab leter has been issued in response to SVCE’s letterdescribing itself as Producer. But the fact remains that D-2 -SVCE is only a original assignee. That apart, the time gap betweenletter dated 06.10.2005 and lab letter dated 17.11.2005 remainsunexplained. 47.The learned Single Judge has examined the lab letter dated17.11.2005 vis-a-vis the lab letter produced by D-4 – S.C.C.[dated 17.01.2006]. S.S.C. claims Overseas rights as per labletter dated 07.01.2006 given by D-2. D-5 claims right ofnegatives of Telugu Version, including overseas rights. While twoof the contesting Defendants claim right over satellite rights andoverseas rights, the validity of the rival claims could be testedonly at the time of trial when the parties adduce evidence.48.Placing reliance upon AIR 1967 Orissa 89 [Sudhakar SahuVs. Achutananda Patel and others], learned counsel Mr.PL.Narayananhas submitted that when execution of document is either admittedor proved, onus is upon the executant to prove that considerationdid not pass and a stranger to transaction cannot question non-passing of consideration. It was further contended that Executantviz., D-1 nor D-2 has challenged the Contingent Contract with D-5and payment to D-5 and while so, plaintiff, a subsequent entrantto the field, cannot deny claim of D-5. This argument could onlybe advanced at the trial stage when the parties adduce evidenceand hence we do not propose to express any views on thiscontention. Suffice it to note that plaintiff having parted with ahuge amount, cannot be said to be a stranger or a rank trespasser.49.As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, paymentof consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- is alsocontradictory. At one hand, the said consideration is said to havebeen paid. On the other hand, materials on record indicateadjustment towards the outstanding payable towards "JANA". Underthose circumstances, D-5 cannot be said to have established anyprima facie case.50.In any event, at this stage, D-5 can only be said to behaving lien over the Telugu Version. In O.A.No.721/2006, D-5 hasprayed for interim injunction restraining D-1 and the plaintifffrom interfering with his Dubbing and re-making rights of theTelugu Version. It is not enough that D-5 has some right of lienover the suit film. He should also establish prima facie case andprove irreparable injury and balance of convenience. Hence refusalby the learned trial Court to issue temporary injunction in favourof D-5 cannot be interfered with and accordingly,O.S.A.No.132/2007 is liable to be dismissed.51. Claim of Gita Chitra International O.S.A.No.125/2007 and OSA127/2007:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Suit C.S.No.741/2006 filed by GCI is for recovery of a sum ofRs.20,10,000/- being the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- said to havebeen advanced by him to D-2 – SVCE. GCI has prayed for InterimInjunction restraining the respondents from dealing with thecopyrights of Telugu Dubbing Version. since claim of GCI is basedupon payment of Rs.15,00,000/- allegedly made by him to SVCE, GCIcannot seek to restrain the plaintiff from dealing with thecopyrights. 52.Insofar as Garnishee order sought by GCI in A.No.4060 of2006, the learned Single Judge has directed the 6th respondentGarnishee to keep the amount of Rs.29,00,000/- deposited with themby the plaintiff herein in a fixed deposit in any one of thenationalized bank. Whether GCI has actually advanced a sum ofRs.15,00,000/- to SVCE and whether GCI can maintain its claimagainst the plaintiff is a matter to be determined at the time oftrial when parties adduce evidence. We find that the orderdirecting deposit of Rs.29,00,000/- in a Nationalized Bank is fairand reasonable and cannot be interfered with. Accordingly,O.S.A.No.125/2006 is liable to be dismissed. OSA No.127/2007preferred by the plaintiff (against the order in A.No.4060/2006)is dismissed.53. Temporary Mandatory Injunction :-Plaintiff has prayed for interim mandatory injunction,directing the lab to deliver the prints of Telugu Version of thesuit film. The learned Single Judge declined to grant interimmandatory injunction mainly on the grounds :-(i)there are other claimants who have advanced moniesto the producer;(ii)granting of interim mandatory injunction wouldamount to decreeing of the suit itself.54.Principle governing grant of temporary mandatoryinjunction is settled. In Borab Cawasji Warden Vs.Coomi SarobWarden [AIR 1990 SC 867], wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph14 of the Judgment has laid down three guidelines:-(i)the plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is,it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie casethat is normally required for a prohibitory injunction;(ii)it is necessary to prevent irreparable or seriousinjury which normally cannot be compensated in terms ofmoney;(iii)the balance of convenience is in favour of the oneseeking such relief.55.The purpose of temporary mandatory injunction is tomaintain status quo on the date of suit. To maintain status quo onthe date of suit, Court is competent to pass temporary injunctioneven in a mandatory form. The words "The Court may by order grant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a temporary injunction or make such other order for the purpose ofpreventing, damaging or otherwise causing injury or loss as theCourt thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until furtherorders" in Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code arewide enough to include in its fold, an order in the mandatory formfor exercising in very rare cases and with due care and cautionunless there are exceptional circumstances. Normally no temporaryinjunction in the mandatory form should be granted, and it cannotbe claimed as a matter of right or can it be issued as a matter ofcourse. Even in rare cases, where temporary mandatory injunctionis granted, it is granted only to maintain status quo and is notgranted to establish a new state of things differing from thestate of things that existed on the date of filing of suit. Whatis to be seen is whether the plaintiff's case is one such rare andexceptional case to grant temporary mandatory injunction. Asobserved by the learned Single Judge, there are other persons whoclaim to have advanced monies to the Producer and got copyrightsand granting of temporary mandatory injunction would seriouslyaffect the rights of the other claimants. Having regard to thematerials on record, we find no exceptional circumstances to granttemporary mandatory injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. Ifthe trial Court refuses to grant a temporary mandatory injunction,the Appellate Court would not generally interfere in the exerciseof discretion. In our view, though plaintiff has proved primafacie existence of his right to the suit film, since there areother claimants and stake holders, any grant of temporarymandatory injunction directing release of prints of the TeluguVersion to the plaintiff would affect the interest of otherclaimants. We confirm the view taken by the learned Single Judgedeclining to grant temporary mandatory injunction.56.However, having regard to the view taken by us inappointing plaintiff as the party Receiver in that context, wedirect the releasing of prints of Telugu Version of suit film tothe plaintiff with appropriate directions indicated infra.O.S.A.No.80/2007 is disposed of with directions.57. Appointment of plaintiff as receiver :-The matter is pending trial and finality could be reachedonly after quite some time. At this juncture, it would not beappropriate to go into the merits of the case, which is pendingtrial. The negative/prints of Telugu Version is in the laboratory.If the Dubbing/re-making of film and the prints thereon is lockedup in lab, it would be no way advantageous to either party. In theCinema field when multitude of films are being released, the suitfilm and its Telugu Version "Mahadeera" might loose its potentialboth in the marketing and collection. Dismissal of the applicationfor Temporary Mandatory Injunction would mean loss to all theparties and would be disadvantageous to various stake holders. Wefeel that the time to be taken for completion of trial would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defeat the very object. Having regard to the interest of allparties and facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that thisis the fit case to appoint Receiver, pending trial. The learnedCounsel for D-5 has also expressed his willingness that D-5 couldbe appointed as Receiver for releasing Telugu Version. Howeverhaving regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deemit fit to appoint plaintiff as party receiver.58.Law relating to Receiver is found in Or.XL, Sections 51(d), 94(d) CPC. The mode and effect of Receiver's appointment andhis rights, powers, duties and liabilities are regulated by theCode of Civil Procedure. There is nothing in Or.XL R.1 CPC whichlimits the power of the Court to appoint a Receiver only to casesin which an application is made to it by a party to the suit. Inappropriate case, the Court may appoint a Receiver under Or.XL R.1CPC even though the plaintiff has not asked for such relief or hasapplied only for injunction.59.The Court can appoint a Receiver even without anapplication by the party. But the power is to be exercisedsparingly and only in exceptional cases. We have alreadysubscribed to the view taken by the learned Single Judge thatplaintiff has proved his prima facie case. Under suchcircumstances, we are of the view that the Appellate Court canappoint the plaintiff as Receiver for the suit film.60.The question may arise whether in a suit for declarationand injunction, receiver could be appointed. Grant of injunctiongoverned by the provisions of Specific Relief Act and equitableconsideration should invariably be the guiding factor whilerecording the findings on the question of prima facie case,irreparable loss and balance of convenience. In 1955(1) MLJ 287[D.K.Raja Vs.K.Raja], the Court has held that in an applicationfor injunction, Court may appoint a receiver if there isalternative prayer for receiver appointment. As noticed earlier,in appropriate cases, the Court may appoint the receiver even suomotu. In such view of the matter, the plaintiff is appointed asparty receiver for the Telugu Version of the suit picture.61. Security and duties of plaintiff/party receiver :-Or.XL R.3 CPC contemplates furnishing of security. But Or.XLR.3 is not mandatory in respect of the requirement as to theReceiver furnishing security. However the Court would dispensewith security only in exceptional cases. The case in hand is notsuch an exceptional case so as to dispense with security. Receiveris appointed for the purpose of dubbing/re-making of TeluguVersion of suit film and for releasing the Telugu Version andmanagement. Releasing involves proper management, collection andkeeping accounts for all dealings. Therefore, in that view of thematter, we direct the plaintiff to furnish security forRs.50,00,000/- by way of immovable property either in his name or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the name of surety. Furnishing of security by the plaintiffshall be to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.62.As Receiver the plaintiff shall take release of thenegative/prints of the Tamil film "Vettayadu Villayadu" fordubbing/remaking of Telugu Version. The plaintiff can exercise thepowers of the owner in the matters of execution of any documentsin respect of the Telugu Version. He is also at liberty to incurany expenses for releasing of the film. The plaintiff is directedto maintain proper accounts showing the expenses and income. Suchaccounts is to be filed before the Court after giving notice andcopy of the account to the other side once in every four months. 63.Such accounts shall be subject to the verification by theopposite party and to the satisfaction of the Court. It is furtherdirected that the accounts of the Telugu Version of the suit filmshall be kept separate and not to be mixed with the income fromthe Tamil Version of the suit film. We further direct that theplaintiff, as Party Receiver, can deduct 60% of gross income to beadjusted towards the expenses and remuneration payable, if any, tobe finalized by the learned trial Court at the conclusion of thetrial. The balance amount is to be credited to the account ofC.S.No.168/2006. Such deposit shall be subject to the result ofthe suit.64.If any income is not properly accounted and anycontentious question is to be determined relating to accounts, thesame could be raised and determined only at the time of trial.65. O.S.A.No.80/2007 :- Appellant plaintiff M/s.7th Channel Communications isappointed as party receiver for the Telugu Version of the suitpicture. The sixth Defendant/ Laboratory is directed to deliverprints of the Telugu Version of the Tamil colour Film "VettayaduVilayadu" to the plaintiff. Appointment of plaintiff is subject tohis rights and duties as stated in paragraph Nos.61, 62, 63 and64. O.S.A.No.80/2007 is ordered accordingly.66.The plaintiff is directed to furnish immovable propertyfor Rs.50,00,000/- as security within a period of four weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order.67.As party receiver, plaintiff can take 60% of gross incomeas stated in paragraph No.63 of the Judgment and the balanceamount is to be credited to the account of C.S.No.168/2006. Thatdeposit is subject to the result of the suit.68.The amount to be credited to the account ofC.S.No.168/2006 is to be invested in a nationalized bank till thecompletion of the trial so that the deposited amount may fetch https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest to the advantage of the successful party.69.O.S.A.Nos.125, 127, 132, 133 and 135/2007 are dismissed.For the reasons stated in paragraph no.37, O.S.A.No.344/ 2006 isallowed.70.O.S.A.Nos.131/2007 and 136/2007 are partly allowed. Allparties are directed to maintain status quo in respect ofSatellite, Audio, Video, Pay TV, DVD, VCD etc. overseas rightstill the disposal of the suit.71.We make it clear that the observations made in this orderare not to be construed as expression of our opinion on the meritsof the contentions of the parties, which shall be determined bythe learned trial Court on merits, without being influenced by anyof the views expressed in this order.72.Having regard to the stakes of the parties involved, wewould also request the learned Single Judge to expedite the trialand dispose the same preferably within one year from the date ofreceipt of copy of this order.TarSd/-Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar.To1.The Sub Assistant Registrar,Original Side, High Court, Madras.2.Mr. Manicam NarayananProprietor, Party ReciverM/s.7th Channel Communications,121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4.•4 ccs to M/s. Sai, Bharath & Ilan, Advocates SR No.42600, 42599,42590 & 45589•1 cc to Mr. P. L. Narayanan, Advocate SR No. 43251NG(CO)SR/19.7.2007 O.S.A. Nos.80, 125, 127,131, 132, 133, 135, 136/2007AND O.S.A.No.344/2006

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Civil Procedure