Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
Ms. Kirthana – Plaintiff
Versus
Mrs. Vinaya Krishnan – Defendant
C.S. No. 395 of 2011
Decided On : 16-02-2017
Civil Law – Civil Suit – Suit for recovery of amount towards liquidated damages - Companys production – Partnership firm - Prior to few months to said discussion, plaintiff had branched out from her mother who is also a leading child artist, now producing various serials in small screen industry and plaintiff started a company called "Satarlight Works" and when said Mrs. Ramya Krishnan in said conversation told plaintiff that her company "Rithvik Dream Visuals", a company which was lying idle for about 3 years and said companys production was only being a coffee and chat show in Gemini T.V. and that she wanted her sister to get into production, plaintiff has discussed with her mother and after discussion with her mother, plaintiff herein had set up a new team, brought in producers and created concept - Few weeks later, plaintiff herein along with defendant, herein started a partnership firm by name "RDV Staarlight Works" since Mrs. Ramya Krishnan wanted her sister namely defendant to be a part of new firm "RDV Staar Works - Whether defendant lodged complaint against plaintiff and thus set criminal law in motion in crime on file of Abiramapuram Police Station with a false allegation that plaintiff committed forgery and made a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- transferred to account of plaintiffs own concern "M/s. Staarlight Works" from account of partnership firm "RDV Staarlight Works", which was started by plaintiff and the defendant as partners - Held, Admitted by both sides that the defendants sister started producing Telugu version of Thangam and also started Telegu version of Kalasam. From pleadings of both sides, it can be easily seen that there were dispute arose between partners with regard to ending of the serial Kalasam - These facts can be seen from the pleadings and evidence of P.W1 - Mere reading of complaint itself clearly indicate that complaint was given only on an apprehension and there was every reason for her to give a complaint when a certain amount is debited from her account and that debit is without her knowledge - She has given a complaint to the authorities to conduct investigation as per law - Therefore, without establishing fact that defendant has singed pay slip and made a complaint against the plaintiff, such complaint cannot be construed as without any reasonable or probable cause - Court view that there is every reason for defendant to make a complaint and that there was a reasonable and appropriate cause to make such complaint - There is no dispute with regard to preposition laid down in above judgments - But merely because, defendant has not got into box, same is not a ground to hold that plaintiff case is true - Even drawing adverse inference against defendant at most this Court can hold that defence of defendant is not true - Still plaintiff is not relieved from initial burden of establishing her case of malicious prosecution - Further, it is not established by plaintiff that defendant has in fact signed pay slip by examining expert or Investigating Officer - Merely because defendant has not been examined, plaintiff cannot succeed automatically - Suit is dismissed.
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
1. The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards liquidated damages together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that in the year 2008, there was a discussion between Mrs. Ramya Krishnan, a cine artist who had expressed her interest about making an entry in the small screen industry to the plaintiff. Prior to few months to the said discussion, the plaintiff had branched out from her mother namely Ms. Kutty Padmini, who is also a leading child artist, now producing various serials in the small screen industry and the plaintiff started a company called "Satarlight Works" and when the said Mrs. Ramya Krishnan in the said conversation told the plaintiff that her company "Rithvik Dream Visuals", a company which was lying idle for about 3 years and the said company's production was only being a coffee and chat show in the Gemini T.V. and that she wanted her sister Ms. Vinaya Krishnan to get into production, the plaintiff has discussed with her mother Ms. Kutty Padmini and after discussion with her mother, the plaintiff herein had set up a new team, brought in producers and created the concept. Few weeks later, the plaintiff herein along with the defendant, herein started a partnership firm by name "RDV Staarlight Works" since Mrs. Ramya Krishnan wanted her sister namely the defendant to be a part of the new firm "RDV Staar Works." The plaintiff and the defendant co-produced "Kalasam" with Visiontime Ramamurthy, Mrs. Ramya Krishnan as a lead heroine and Ms. Kutty Padmini Creative Director.
3. In the year 2009, the entire venture "Kalasam" all of a sudden halted either without the consent of the plaintiff or without her knowledge. Many issues have cropped up and the defendant herein along with her sister Mrs. Ramya Krishnan, ended "Kalasam" serial and started another serial called "Thangam" with the very same producer Visiontime Ramamurthy. The plaintiff herself was shocked and she was also thoroughly cheated. The plaintiff's mother who has also been cheated, went ahead for legal course. However, the plaintiff herein patiently waited since she thought that being friends, there could be an amicable settlement reached. Therefore, it is stated by the plaintiff that as per the prior agreement with the plaintiff, she is entitled to 50% of the total cost. Accordingly, the Visiontime Ramamurthy has sold 55,000 episodes and the plaintiff is entitled Rs. 30,00,000/- with accrued interest thereupon. However, the plaintiff has not moved the Court. But only wanted an amicable settlement.
4. As things stood thus, all of a sudden certain police officials attached to E.4 Abiramapuram Police Station, asked the plaintiff to appear in the police station for enquiry, since they have received a complaint from the defendant alleging that the plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant in the Pay Order. When the plaintiff went to the police station for enquiry, she was informed that a case was registered in Cr. No. 669 dated 12.09.2009 for the alleged offences under sections 465 and 471 of IPC. The plaintiff at no point of time forged the signature of the defendant. The defendant also filed LOC with immigration authorities alleging as if the plaintiff has committed rank forgery. On getting a copy of the FIR, the plaintiff came to the conclusion that the defendant herein with an ulterior motive has given a false complaint against the plaintiff as if the defendant had approached the Standard Chartered Bank, Haddows Road Branch, Chennai and alleged that there was a debit entry on 08.06.2009 for a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- in favour of the plaintiff's company M/s. Staarlight Works. It is also alleged by the defendant that his signature in the pay slip was forged.
5. The plaintiff has been summoned several times under
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
