An assignment agreement is valid and enforceable where parties have acted under the agreement, and lack of counterclaims against payment liability affirms this position.

JUDGMENT :

(V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.)

The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment and decree dated 23.12.2020 passed by the Court of LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (in short, Trial Court/Sessions Judge) in Com.OS No.26336/2011, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has decreed the suit by stating as under:

“ORDER

The Suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed.

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay jointly or severally Rs.3,70,30,050/- to the Plaintiff with interest at 15% per annum from the date of suit till realization.

The Defendant No.1 to 3 are directed to pay the cost of the suit to the Plaintiff. The Advocate for the Plaintiff is directed to file Memorandum of Cost before the Office within 5 days from today as required under Rule 99 and 100 of Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice .

Draw up Decree accordingly.

The Office is directed to send copy of this Judgment to Plaintiff and Defendants to their email ID as required under Order XX Rule 1 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE as amended under Section 16 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT .”

2. The appellants herein were the defendants in the aforesaid suit. The respondent herein had filed a suit for specific performance of the assignment agreement dated 04.08.2008 executed between the appellant No.1 and the respondent in as much as to pay a sum of Rs.3,70,30,050/- to the respondent jointly and severally with future interest at the rate of 15% p.a. till the realization of the dues.

3. The facts that need to be noted from the record are, the respondent is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was the case of the respondent that, Sri. Ram Babu, the proprietor of proprietorship concern M/s Ram Babu Productions represented that he has vast knowledge in the field of film making of Kannada motion pictures and requested the respondent for financial assistance for making a Kannada film then titled as ‘Aahaa’ and subsequently titled ‘Ghauttham’.

4. It was the case of the respondent that the appellant No.1 wanted the respondent to pay upto Rs.3,00,00,000/- for the project, but the project was completed at Rs.2,46,08,184/-. The respondent paid the appellant No.1 a total sum of Rs.2,46,08,184/- on various dates after executing an agreement of assignment as per the stages of the project. It was the case of the respondent that appellant No.1 had promised to clear the agreed amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- before the release of the said film. It was the case of the respondent that the amount was paid in time as per the progress of the project and appellants No.1 to 3 promised and guaranteed repayment of Rs.3,50,00,000/- before the release of the said film, failing which the respondent is entitled to claim the said amount with 15% interest per annum. It was the case of the respondent that appellants No.1 to 3 postponed the release of the said film due to technical problems and promised to pay the interest as agreed, due to the delay in release of the said film. The film was released on 03.04.2009 and on that day itself, appellant No.1 had promised that he will comply with the terms of the assignment agreement and requested some more time to make full and final payment /settlement as agreed to as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. But, the appellants never honored the commitment. The respondent se