SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Kasthoori Film, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. M. Ashok Samraj – Plaintiff
Versus
Cinema Paradise Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Shakthi Chidambaram – Defendant
C.S. No. 64 of 2011
Decided On : 11-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. J.S. Rinivasan.

The plaintiff's establishment of the agreements and the case for recovery of money led to the court decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Headnote:

Recovery - Distribution Rights - The court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.85,00,000 with interest, as the plaintiff proved the agreement and established the case for recovery of money.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.85,00,000 with interest, based on distribution rights agreements for a film and the defendant's failure to refund the advance amounts as per the agreements.

Finding of the Court:

The court found in favor of the plaintiff, decreeing the suit for the recovery of Rs.85,00,000 with interest, as the plaintiff proved the agreements and established the case for recovery of money.

Issues: Recovery of advance amounts, distribution rights agreements, and failure of the defendant to refund the advance amounts as per the agreements.

Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff proved the agreements and established the case for recovery of money, leading to the court decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Final Decision: The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.85,00,000 with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the plaint till the date of realization, along with costs.

JUDGMENT :

1. Suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty five lakhs only) together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the plaint till the date of realization.

2. The plaintiff's case is as follows:

Under an agreement dated 28.04.2010, the plaintiff obtained the distribution rights for Salem area and on the same day, Mr. Palaniyappan, a friend of the plaintiff obtained distribution rights for the Trichy-Tanjore area for the film Guru Sishyan. Both the agreements contained a covenant that the 1st defendant would make good any unrealized advance. The plaintiff paid Rs.39 lakhs (Rupees Thirty nine lakhs only) as advance and the said Mr. Palaniyappan paid Rs.41 lakhs (Rupees Forty one lakhs only). After the general release of the film, the plaintiff and the said Mr. Palaniyappan could not realize the advance amount paid by them. The amount that was left un-recovered in the case of the plaintiff was around Rs.31 lakhs (Rupees Thirty one lakhs only) and in the case of the said Mr. Palaniyappan, it was around Rs.36 lakhs.(Rupees Thirty six lakhs only).

3. At the time of release of the said film, to meet the eleventh hour deficit, the plaintiff paid a further sum of a little over Rs.15 lakhs (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only). Mr. Palaniyappan made over the dues under the Distribution Agreement dated 28.04.2010. The 1st defendant is well aware of this transaction. After repeated demands from the plaintiff for refunding the advance amount, the 1st defendant executed an agreement dated 24.11.2010, agreeing to pay the sum of Rs.85 lakhs (Rupees Eighty five lakhs only) promised to settle before the release of his another film Kavalan. The 2nd defendant has also agreed to pay the said amount directly to the plaintiff. As a result, tripartite letter dated 28.11.2010 was signed by both the defendants. As the amount is not paid, the plaintiff has filed the present the suit. Defendants remained ex-parte. They are not contesting.

4. Defendants remained ex-parte. They are not contesting. On the side of the plaintiff was examined P.W-1. Ex.P-1 to 6 were marked. In his evidence, PW-1 deposed that distribution rights, were given to the plaintiff and one Mr. Palaniyappan also and the 1st defendant agreed to make the good unrealized the advance amount, besides that, 1st defendant has made over the dues to the plaintiff under the Distribution Agreement dated 24.11.2010 and a tripartite letter dated 28.11.2010. From the evidence of P.W-1 and Ex.P-1 agreement, it is clear that the plaintiff that they have proved the agreement between the parties. The plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty nine lakhs only) as refundable distribution amount. The agreement clearly shows that the 1st defendant specifically agreed for refund of unadjusted distribution advances at the end of 45th day from its first and general release of the said picture. Ex.P.2 similar agreement executed by the 1st defendant, specifically relating to Mr. Palaniyappan, also containing similar version, wherein also the first defendant had received advance of Rs.41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty one lakhs only). The Ex.P-3 and 4 receipts were filed to prove the receipt of the advance amounts. As per Ex.P-5 agreement dated 24.11.2010; the first defendant agreed to return a sum of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty five lakhs only) to the plaintiff, 7 days before the release of the Tamil film Kavalan. As per Ex.P-6 tripartite letter dated 28.11.2010, the 2nd defendant has agreed to settle the amount. These documents have not been disputed. From the above documents, it is clear that the plaintiff established its case for recovery of money. In the absence of any contra evidence, when the documents are established before the Court, the plaintiff has proved its case as per the law.

5. Accordingly, the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty five lakhs only) with interested at 6% p.a., from the date of plaint till the date of realization, along w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top