AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.
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 u/s 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 u/s 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.
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.
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.
Added further the learned Counsel that the further contention put forth that the pendency of proceedings u/s 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.
The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
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.
Accordingly, all these original side appeals are disposed of. The parties will bear their own costs. Consequently, connected MPs are dismissed.