Madras HC Lifts Injunction on 'Sangita Kalanidhi M.S.Subbulakshmi Award'; Will Doesn't Bar Memorial Awards, Plaintiff Lacks Prima Facie Case. - 2024-12-13

Court Cases & Legal News.

Madras High Court Lifts Injunction on " Sangita Kalanidhi M.S.Subbulakshmi Award "

Chennai: In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has set aside an interim injunction that previously restrained The Music Academy and other defendants from conferring the " Sangita Kalanidhi M.S.Subbulakshmi Award ." A Division Bench comprising Justices S.S. Sundar and P. Dhanabal allowed the appeal (OSA.No.236/2024) filed by the second and third defendants (associated with 'The Hindu' newspaper, which institutes a cash component of the award) against the single judge's injunction order.

However, the court dismissed a connected appeal (OSA.No.235/2024) filed by The Music Academy (1st defendant) challenging the single judge's refusal to reject the plaint filed by V. Shrinivasan , the grandson of the legendary Carnatic vocalist Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi . This means the main suit will proceed to trial.

Background of the Dispute

The original suit (CS.No.194/2024) was filed by V. Shrinivasan seeking to perpetually injunct The Music Academy, 'The Hindu', and its publishing company (defendants 1 to 3) from selecting and conferring the " Sangita Kalanidhi M.S.Subbulakshmi Award ," particularly on the 4th defendant, musician T.M. Krishna.

Shrinivasan contended that conferring an award in Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi 's name violated a mandate in her Will dated October 3, 1997. He also raised objections to the choice of the 4th defendant as the awardee, citing alleged controversial statements made by him. The " Sangita Kalanidhi M.S.Subbulakshmi Award " involves a cash prize instituted by the 3rd defendant (a national daily run by the 2nd defendant) in 2005, given to the recipient of the " Sangita Kalanidhi Award " bestowed by The Music Academy.

A single judge had earlier granted an ad-interim injunction restraining defendants 1 and 3 from conferring the award and had dismissed The Music Academy's application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

Key Arguments

Appellants' Contentions (The Music Academy and 'The Hindu' group):

* The plaintiff, V. Shrinivasan , lacked locus standi as he was merely a beneficiary under the Will and not the executor, who is the sole legal representative under Sections 211 and 216 of the Indian Succession Act . * The suit was barred under Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act .

* The single judge misinterpreted the Will, which did not forbid conferring awards in Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi 's memory by independent organizations.

* The plaintiff's claim was affected by acquiescence , as numerous other awards and memorials in Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi 's name had been instituted and accepted over many years without objection, with family members, including the plaintiff, participating in some such events.

* The choice of awardee was the prerogative of The Music Academy.

Respondent's Contentions ( V. Shrinivasan ):

* As a legal heir and legatee, he was entitled to file the suit.

* The Will explicitly forbade the creation of memorials, and the award fell under this prohibition.

* The right of publicity and personality of a celebrity survives death and can be protected by legal heirs against misuse, dilution, or tarnishment, citing precedents like

* Titan Industries Vs. M/s.Ramkumar Jewellers * and Shiwaji Rao Gaikwad Vs. Varsha Productions .

High Court's Reasoning

On Rejection of Plaint (OSA.No.235/2024): The Bench upheld the single judge's decision not to reject the plaint. It noted that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely on plaint averments. The Court found that: > "(16) ...the plaintiff has disclosed a cause of action in the plaint." It stated that complex issues like locus standi and the precise interpretation of the Will, especially concerning alleged prohibitions, require evidence and a full trial.

On Interim Injunction (OSA.No.236/2024): The Division Bench extensively analyzed the Will and disagreed with the single judge's interpretation that it forbade such awards.

Interpretation of Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi 's Will: The relevant clause in the Will stated: "It is my earnest desire and mandate that after my demise, no Trust, Foundation or Memorial of any kind including erecting of any statue or bust shall be formed or created or made in my name and memory... except to the extent of what I have stated above regarding the mementos, souvenirs etc..." The Court opined: > "(26) From the plain reading of the contents of the Will, the testatrix did not want anybody to form or create or make any Trust, Foundation or Memorial of any kind... The findings of the learned Judge that conferment of award in her name or in memory of her is forbidden, cannot be accepted. Had it been the intention of testatrix that no award shall be conferred on anyone in her name, that could have been expressed in simple language." The Bench concluded that the Will's prohibition was aimed at the creation of new trusts or foundations and collection of funds for such purposes by her heirs or representatives, not against independent organizations honoring her memory.

Acquiescence: The Court found merit in the appellants' plea of acquiescence, noting the existence of numerous undisputed awards, fellowships, auditoriums, and statues in Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi 's name. > "(33) When several works had been done in her name or in memory of her even during the lifetime of the testatrix... the plea of acquiescence cannot be discarded." The Court also observed the plaintiff's failure to implead other institutions conferring similar awards raised questions about the bona fides of the litigation, suggesting a possible "oblique motive against the 4th defendant."

No Legal Injury or Enforceable Right for Plaintiff: The Court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any legal injury or an enforceable right stemming from the Will that would allow him to injunct the award. > "(36) The plaintiff/1st respondent on the basis of a mere wish of late Dr. M.S.Subbulakshmi , cannot plead a legal injury. Unless there is wrong which is forbidden by law, the plaintiff/1st respondent cannot have a cause of action to injunct another person from doing an act." The Court distinguished the present case from those involving commercial exploitation of a celebrity's personality rights, stating, "That is not the situation here."

No Prima Facie Case: Based on the above, the Court concluded: > "(39) From the above discussions, this Court finds no prima facie case in favour of plaintiff/1st respondent. This Court has held that the plaintiff/1st respondent has no legal or enforceable right. This Court is unable to see any legal injury to the plaintiff/1st respondent."

Suitability of Awardee: The Court concurred with the single judge that the suitability of the award recipient is the prerogative of The Music Academy and not a matter for judicial review.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed OSA.No.235/2024, meaning the suit filed by V. Shrinivasan will proceed to trial where evidence can be led by both sides.

The Court allowed OSA.No.236/2024, thereby setting aside the interim injunction . This clears the way for The Music Academy and 'The Hindu' to confer the " Sangita Kalanidhi M.S.Subbulakshmi Award " on the chosen recipient.

The Bench clarified: > "(43) The conclusions which we have reached on the interpretation of the Will and the right and locus standi of plaintiff are only for the purpose of deciding the Interlocutory Applications or for expressing our prima facie view. Hence, the Trial Court, while disposing of the suit based on evidence, is directed to deal with every issue and dispose of the suit purely on merits uninfluenced by any of the observations and conclusions which we have expressed in this judgment."

This decision underscores the high threshold for granting interim injunctions, particularly when prima facie rights and legal injuries are not clearly established, and highlights the judiciary's approach to interpreting testamentary wishes in the context of public honors and memorials by independent bodies.