IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M/s. Madras Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor, S. Nanthagopal, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
M/s. F.M. Finance & Investments, Rep., by its Partner, Praveen Kumar, Chennai & Another – Respondent
A. Nos. 2290 & 2291 of 2021 in C.S. No. 37 of 2020
Decided on : 06-10-2021
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 151 - Order XIV and XXIII - Rule 3 and 8 - Compromise decree - Permanent injunction - Seeking declaration absolute Copyright -Case of plaintiff as found in plaint is that, towards assignment of distribution right of film “Naadodigal-2” for a period of 5 years, respondents as producer of film agreed to assign right for a consideration as per schedule found in the agreement date - Totally a was paid during production period - Balance sum has to be paid as final settlement at the time of release of filim - However, contrary to the agreement, applicant herein assigned distribution right for the suit film to M/s.Linda Big Pictures in violation of agreement dated - Hence, suit - Court, on considering the facts, passed an exparte order of injunction holding that, balance of convenience is stands in favour of the plaintiff and injunction was granted subject to condition that, plaintiff shall deposit a sum (i.e., balance consideration agreed) in credit of C.S.No.within a period of two weeks – Held, applicant had approached Court urgently to vacate injunction order and had admitted the borrowing from plaintiff and his father - Knowingly and voluntarily he had entered into compromise and availed benefit of vacating injunction - Thereafter, he is estopped from challenging compromise decree, as void on a hyper technical ground -This petition is filed nearly two months after the compromise decree which means after fully exploiting movie commercially for more than 50 days - Hence fraud, if at all any, it should be attributed only to applicant and not to any one else- It is unfortunate that present Counsel has fallen prey to dubious design of applicant and had carried brief though knowing well that belated retraction of sworn undertaking that too after enjoying fruits of compromise decree is abuse of law - Application Nos.2290 & 2291 of 2021 are dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in A.No.2290 of 2021 : Judge's Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 read within Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.
(a). This application should not be treated as urgent?
(b). This Hon'ble Court should not pleased to set aside the compromise decree and the judgment dated 31.01.2020 made in C.S.(Commercial Division) No.37 of 2020, on the file of this Hon'ble Court and to restore the same to file and decide the same on merits and,
(c). Why this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and thus render justice.
A.No.2291 of 2021: Judge's Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.
(a). This application should not be treated the application as urgent?
(b). This Hon'ble Court should not pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the judgment and compromise decree dated 31.01.2020 made in C.S. (Commercial Division)No.37 of 2020, pending disposal of the above Application and,
c). Why this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and thus render justice.)
1. Application No.2290 of 2021 is filed by the defendant/applicant in the suit C.S (Commercial Division) No.37 of 2020, to set aside the compromise decree passed by this Court on 31.01.2020. The subject suit was filed by the respondent herein, seeking declaration that he is the absolute Copyright Owner of the film “Naadodigal-2” for entire Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, for a period of 5 years, from the date of release and for a permanent injunction not to issue the Key Delivery Message (KDM), to any one, except the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit C.S.(Comm.Div).No.37 of 2020.
2. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint is that, towards the assignment of distribution right of the film “Naadodigal-2” for a period of 5 years, the respondents as the producer of the film agreed to assign the right for a consideration of Rs.5,25,00,000/- as per schedule found in the agreement dated 16.05.2018. Totally a sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/- was paid during the production period. The balance sum of Rs.1,75,00,000/- has to be paid as final settlement at the time of release of the filim. However, contrary to the agreement, the applicant herein assigned the distribution right for the suit film to M/s.Linda Big Pictures in violation of agreement dated 16.05.2018. Hence, the suit.
3. This Court, on considering the facts, passed an exparte order of injunction holding that, the balance of convenience is stands in favour of the plaintiff and injunction was granted subject to the condition that, the plaintiff shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,75,00,000/- (i.e., the balance consideration agreed) in the credit of C.S.No.37 of 2020 within a period of two weeks, from 30.01.2020. On coming to know about the interim order, the applicant herein, on the very next day (i.e., 31.01.2020), approached the Court and filed petition for vacating the order of injunction. In the said application, it was submitted by applicant that, he has borrowed only a sum of Rs.1.50,00,000/- towards the movie “Naadodigal – 2” from the plaintiff and not a sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/-.
4. However, after making the above submission, the applicant herein had agreed to compromise the suit by transferring a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by 6.00pm on that evening through RTGS or in any other mode and also pay balance sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- within a period of 2 weeks, from 31.01.2020. He also agreed to file an affidavit of undertaking on 03.02.2020 to the said effect. With the said observation, the suit itself was disposed of and compromise decree was passed on 31.01.2020.
5. As per the direction of this Court, S.Nanthagopal also filed an affidavit of undertaking on 03.02.2020. Despite an undertaking, he did not paid the balance of Rs.1,50,00,000/- within a period of two weeks. A separate proceedings has been initiated for th
Byram Pestonji Gariwala -vs- Union Bank of India and others reported in (1992) 1 SCC 31
Banwari Lal -vs- Chando Devi (Smt) (Through LRS) and another reported in (1993) 1 SCC 581
D.P.Chadha -vs- Triyugi Narain Mishra and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 221
Gurpreeth Singh -vs- Chatur Bhuj Goel reported in (1988) 1 SCC 270
Jineshwardas (D) by LRs and others -vs- Jagrani (Smt) and another reported in (2003) 11 SCC 372
R.Rajanna -vs- S.R.Venkataswamy and others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 471
Santosh -vs- Jagat Ram and another reported in (2010) 3 SCC 251
State Bank of Patiala and others -vs- S.K.Sharma reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364
State of Orissa and another -vs- Bibhisan Kanhar reported in (2017) 8 SCC 608
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.