3 in OSA 285, 286 287, 288, 289 & 290/2009 vs
1.G.G.Photo Limited represented by its Director Sushil Gupta No.42, Irish Park Juhu, Mumbai 400 049. .. 1st Respondent in OSA 282 and 285 /2009 and appellant in OSA 288/2009
2.Sri Devi Kapoor Proprietrix Sridevi Productions Lens View Building, 5th Floor, Opp. Prathamesh School Veera Desai Road, Extn., Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 053.
Original Side Appeals preferred under Order XXXVI, Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order of this Court made in O.A.No.752 of 2009 in C.S.No.370 of 2008, O.A.753/2009 in C.S.No.371/2008 and O.A.754/2009 in C.S.No.372/2008 dated 27.8.2009.
For Appellants : Mr.AL.Somayaji Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Manoj Menon for appellants in OSA 282 to 284/09 & 2nd respondent in OSA 288 to 290/09 For Respondents : Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Subba Reddy for 1st respondent in OSA 288 to 290/09 and for appellant in OSA 285 to 287/09 Mr.K.Ravi for M/s.Rugan & Arya for 1st respondent in OSA 282 to 284/09 & 285 to 287/09 and for appellant in OSA 288 to 290/09 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) All these nine appeals concentrate on challenging a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the plaintiffs brought three suits for recovery of money against the defendants therein. In the said suits, the applications were filed for interim injunction to restrain the defendants from delivering or causing the delivery of or releasing or causing the release of any print of the Hindu Cinematograph film titled WANTED, produced by the third defendant anywhere in the world, in any form and through any media whatsoever, without first paying the sums claimed in the suits.
2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.
3.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants in OSA Nos.282 to 284/2009, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.A.L.Somayaji would submit that in the instant case, the entire liability was denied; that it is true that there was a borrowal; but there was a payment made; that apart from that, it is a case where this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits at all; that even as per the plaintiffs' case, the borrowal had taken place in Mumbai; that the first defendant was not a party at all; that originally there was an agreement entered into between the parties in which three films were pointed out, for the purpose of finance; that alleging there was a letter issued by the first defendant, the other defendants have also been roped in; that the first defendant was never a party to the agreement; that insofar as the loan, they were all forged; that even two cheques were alleged to have been issued, and they were also forged documents; that proceedings under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been initiated before the criminal Court at Mumbai by the plaintiffs against the defendants; that the first defendant moved the High Court of Mumbai by filing an O.P. for quashing the proceedings in which the Mumbai High Court has made an order that as far as the issuance of cheques was concerned, a complaint was lodged by the first defendant, and a case came to be registered by the police; that this was also referred to in the order of the Mumbai High Court wherein there was actually a direction issued to the plaintiffs to produce the cheques before the Court, and the Investigation Officer has also been issued a direction to obtain necessary direction for verification of the signature since it was repeatedly contended by the defendants that it was a forged one; that the plaintiffs have also not produced the cheques; that the proceedings under Sec.138 are also pending before that criminal Court; that while the matter stood thus, the plaintiffs have moved the original jurisdiction of this Court as if a letter and cheques were issued in the City of Madras in order to invoke the jurisdiction; that basically this was disputed; that apart from that, it is a case where an application for attachment of the immovable property of the defendants was also moved in which a counter has been filed, and it is also kept pending; that a written statement has also been filed; that under the circumstances, the applications have been filed for interim injunction pending the suit from screening the film named WANTED, and it is scheduled to be screened on 18.9.2009; that this film is actually one of the films in respect of which the finance was made; and that as per the agreement it is outside the scope.
4.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that while an application for attachment before judgment has already been made and pending consideration, these applications for interim injunction would not lie; that as far as the interim injunction is concerned, the legislature has envisaged the situation that if there is any prejudice to be caused to the subject matter of the suit, injunction has got to be sought for; but, in the instant case, no case has been made out; that as far as the film is concerned, there is a partnership firm, and 50% has also been financed by some other party; that it is also mentioned in the written statement; that under the circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge is actually contrary to the factual and legal position, and hence the injunction has got to be vacated.
5.Contrary to the above, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the first respondent in OSA Nos.282 to 284 and 285 to 287 of 2009 that it is a case where the question of jurisdiction at this stage would not arise; that leave was sought for, and it was also granted; that the same was challenged before the appellate forum, and the appeal has also been dismissed; that under the circumstances, question of jurisdiction would not lie and revocation of leave cannot be heard; that it is a case where the entire case was rested upon the borrowal and subsequent affirmation by way of letter issued by the defendants including the first defendant; that under the circumstances, the suits were filed here; that there is no impediment for claiming the reliefs; that it is true that at the time when the suits were filed, an application for attachment before judgment in respect of the immovable properties was filed pending the suit; that it was not actually pressed at that time; that when the matter was pending, the defendants were about to release the film; that even if the application for attachment before judgment is ordered, the same would not in any way satisfy the claim when it is decreed; that under the circumstances, it has become necessary to file the instant applications for interim injunction to restrain the defendants from screening the film to which finance has been utilised; that under the circumstances, there is no impediment in law for granting interim injunction; that even all these factual positions were appraised by the learned Single Judge and an order has been passed.
6.Added further the learned Counsel that the further contention put forth that the pendency of proceedings under Sec.138 before the criminal Court at Mumbai or the order passed by the Mumbai High Court will not in any way impede the passing of an order of interim injunction as one done by the learned Single Judge; that all the appeals do not carry merit and they have got to be dismissed.
7.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
8.It is pertinent to point out that the truth or genuineness of the letter, the agreement and also the cheques have got to be appreciated only on appreciation of evidence at the time of trial and on evidence to be adduced both oral and documentary on either side. It is not a fit stage where the Court can get into resolve the controversy between the parties because it requires appreciation of evidence. The Court has to point out that the original borrowal as put forth by the plaintiffs is not disputed by the defendants. On the contrary, they would say that payments have been made. Even the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that there was a substantial payment made. But, the entire reading of the written statement nowhere indicates what was the payment made, the time of payment, etc. At the same time, it could be seen that the film is actually to be released on 18.9.2009. It is the case of the plaintiffs that if not the film is stopped from screening, he could not get the remedy. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that some amount has got to be deposited by the defendants before the trial Court to the credit of the suits. Accordingly, the defendants hereby undertake to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crores only) to the credit of C.S.Nos.370, 271 and 372 of 2008 before the trial Court on or before 16.9.2009. On such deposit, the film could be released as per the schedule on 18.9.2009. The Registry is also directed to deposit the said amount in a nationalised bank so that it would yield interest. The other questions are kept open to be raised by the parties and to be decided by the trial Court at the time of trial.
9.Accordingly, all these original side appeals are disposed of. The parties will bear their own costs. Consequently, connected MPs are dismissed.
nsv