IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd. - Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Magic Frames, Partnership Firm, reg. By its Partner R. Sarath Kumar, Chennai - Defendant
A. Nos. 2906, 2907, 2909, 2910 of 2017 & O.A. No. 540 of 2017 in C.S. No. 393 of 2017
Decided On : 17-07-2017
Negotiable instruments - Section 139 and 138 - Grant injunction - Seeking grant of interim injunction - Mortgage deed - Mortgage deed - Applicant in O.A. is plaintiff herein - Suit has been laid for passing judgment and decree - Endants to pay a sum along with interest at rate - Applicant/plaintiff has also filed original application in O.A.No. - Seeking grant of interim injunction, restraining 3rd respondent/defendant or his agents from in any manner encumbering or creating third party rights with regard to suit schedule property - Affidavit filed in support of Original Application by applicant/plaintiff and having satisfied applicant/plaintiff – Held, Mortgage deed is replaced, earlier loan automatically gets discharged and in circumstances, there cannot be any enforceable debt which can be basis of suit claim, is concerned, it ought to be noted or seen suit is based only on dishonoured cheques under Order 7, Rule 1 of O.S. Rules, de hors mortgage deed and therefore, citations relied upon by learned counsel for respondents/defendants on aspect of whether personal decree can be obtained against mortgagor in absence of any specific covenant - Court does not find any merit in contentions of the respondents/defendants put forth in support of all captioned four applications filed by them - Court is also of there is considerable force in contention put forth by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
1. The applicant in O.A. 540 of 2017 is the plaintiff herein. The suit has been laid for passing judgment and decree for the following reliefs, viz.,
a. directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. since the date of return of cheques unpaid till the date of realization of the amount; and
b. directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
2. Along with the suit, the applicant/plaintiff has also filed original application in O.A.No.540 of 2017, seeking grant of interim injunction, restraining the 3rd respondent/defendant or his agents from in any manner encumbering or creating third party rights with regard to the suit schedule property.
3. This Court, upon consideration of the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the Original Application by the applicant/plaintiff and having satisfied that the applicant/plaintiff has made out prima facie case, granted interim injunction as prayed for.
4. On notice, the respondents/defendants entered appearance through their counsel and filed the following applications, for the following reliefs, viz.,
i. A.No.2906 of 2017: To vacate the order of interim injunction dated 25.5.2017 passed in O.A.No.540 of 2017 in C.S.No.393 of 2017;
ii. A.No.2907 of 2017: To treat the suit C.S.No.393 of 2017 as an ordinary suit under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules;
i. A.No.2909 of 2017: To stay further proceedings in C.S.No.393 of 2017 under Order 7 of O.S. Rules, pending disposal of the application to treat the suit as an ordinary suit under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules; and
ii. A.No.2910 of 2017: To reject the plaint in C.S.No.393 of 2017 or in the alternative to dismiss the suit as not maintainable.
5. All the above captioned applications are taken up for hearing together for disposal on request made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are described as applicant/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants.
7. The case of the applicant/plaintiff is as follows:
The respondents/defendants herein have collectively approached the applicant/plaintiff seeking grant of financial assistance for production of a feature film, titled "Production No.4". According to the applicant/plaintiff, the plaintiff which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in the business of production and distribution of films and also in lending money for film production activities. In response to the request of the respondents/defendants, the applicant/plaintiff agreed to provide financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 1.50 Crores. This amount was paid by way of a Cheque bearing No.002502 dated 5.11.2014 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank. In respect of the said transaction, a loan agreement was entered into between the parties on 5.11.2014 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36% p.a. as interest on the loan amount as per the Clause 3 of the loan agreement. As per Clause 4 of the loan agreement, the borrower shall repay the entire loan amount with outstanding amount along with other dues by 31.3.2015. Further, as per the loan agreement dated 5.11.2014, the respondents/defendants had agreed that all the revenues from world Satellite rights, television relating screening and broadcasting, cable television DTH Television, Digital Broadcasting, Video, VCD and DVD etc., for the said feature film shall vest with the applicant/plaintiff and further, the respondents/defendants have also undertaken that they shall not to alienate such rights vested with the applicant/plaintiff to third parties.
8. In accordance with the loan agreement, the respondents/defendants have not repaid the loan and defaulted the payment amount borrowed by them in to. While so, the respondents/defendants once again approached the applicant/plaintiff for grant of further financial assistance and promised to execute a mortgage deed to that effect for both the outstanding amount with interest and
Anil Kumar Sawhney v. Gulshan Rai
Bishan Datt Singh and another v. Matura Prasad and another
Best Sellers Retail India Pvt. Limited v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited & others
Dalpat Kumar and Anr. v. Prahlad Singh and Ors.
O.P. Singla and Another v. Union of India and Others
Pulsive Technologies Private Limited v. State of Gujarat and Others
Rangappa v. Sri Mohan and another
S. Ramesh Babu v. P. Changaiah
Tanna & Modi v. CIT, Mumbai XXV and Others
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.