AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jeyapaul, J.—Application No. 2067/2007 is preferred by the applicant/plaintiff seeking an order of attachment restraining the 4th respondent/garnishee from parting with the prints of the picture of ''Solly Adippen'', pending disposal of the suit.
Application No. 192/2007 is filed seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent in any manner releasing the picture ''Solly Adippen''.
The applicant who is the plaintiff contends that he carries on business as Producer of Tamil films. Originally, the first respondent announced the commencement of production of ''Thavamai Thavamirundu'', but due to some reasons he was unable to commence the production of the film and the applicant commenced production of the said film by releasing the same on 3rd December 2005. The second and third respondents filed C.S. No. 970/2005 and CS. No. 993/2005 as against the first respondent claiming recovery of a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in each suit. The second and third respondents also moved necessary application seeking to restrain the applicant from releasing the picture c Thavamirundu''. The first respondent in his counter affidavit filed therein contended that the 3rd respondent created blank stamp papers and pro-notes at the time when he availed loan for the film ''Solly Adippen''. This Court directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the credit of each of those suits and the applicant complied with the said order. A sum of Rs. 20 lakhs has been deposited by the applicant to the credit of the aforesaid two suits filed by the second and third respondent against the first respondent. The first respondent has now announced release of the picture ''Solli Adlppen'' on 23.2.2007 without releasing the applicant from the burden of deposit made by the applicant in the aforesaid two suits. Therefore, the applicant prays for a pro-order as against the fourth respondent and interim injunction as against the first respondent from releasing the film ''Solly Adippen''.
In the common counter filed by the first respondent, it is submitted that the first respondent was not liable to pay any amount to the second and third respondents who laid the suits in O.S.Nos. 933 and 947 of 2005 on the file of this Court. The documents purportedly used in the said suits have been concocted. The applicant had not deposited any amount into the Court to the credit of the aforesaid suits at the instance of the first respondent. Further, the first respondent had not utilised the said deposit made by the applicant to the credit of those two suits, nor was the amount credited to the account of the first respondent. The suit itself is misdirected and filed with the connivance of the second and third respondents. There is no legal obligation on the part of the first respondent to answer the claim of the applicant. After all, the amount was deposited on his own volition in order to meet the contingency arisen in the aforesaid suits. When the amount deposited by the applicant is in tact in the Court, the present suit is quite pre-mature. If the film ''Solly Adippen'' produced by the first respondent is not released in time, the first respondent will incur heavy loss. Therefore, the first respondent prays for dismissal of those two applications.
Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the first respondent has categorically admitted in the counter filed in the earlier suit that the blank signed stamp papers and pro notes handed over by him to the third respondent in connection with the loan he obtained for the production of the film ''Solly Adippen'' have been concocted. The first respondent shirked his responsibility in the aforesaid suits contending therein that he owed some amount to the third respondent only for the production of the film ''Solly Adippen'' Therefore, necessity arose for the applicant herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in each of the suits in order to release the film Thavamai Thavamirundu''. The applicant who was not connected with those two suits had to deposit such a huge amount on account of the stand taken by the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent whose skin was saved by the applicant in those two suits by depositing a total sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to the credit of those two suits will have to be restrained from releasing the film ''Solli Adippen''.
Learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that there is virtually no cause of action for filing the present suit. Very strangely a suit has been filed by the applicant fixing responsibility on the first respondent for the necessity to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to the credit of those two suits. The first respondent has taken a consistent stand throughout that he was not liable to pay any amount either to the second or to the third respondent. The further stand is that all the documents were concocted to suit the convenience of the respondents 2 and 3. When the deposit is in tact, the question of claiming any amount from the first respondent and restraining the release of the film produced by him does not arise for consideration.
As far as the second respondent is concerned, the first respondent has taken a concrete stand that he did not owe any money to him. As far as the third respondent is concerned, it is his contention that the blank stamp papers and pro-notes were handed over by him to the third respondent at the time when he availed loan for the production of the film ''Solli Adippen'', Therefore, even as regards the claim of the third respondent, he has not admitted the entire claim of Rs. 10 lakhs made by the third respondent as against the first respondent n the said suit. Of course, the first respondent has taken a stand that he obtained loan from the third respondent for the production of the film ''Solly Adippen''. The third respondent has filed a suit as against the first respondent, of course, arraying the applicant also as one of the parties, contending therein that he lent loan for the production of the film ''Thavamai Thavamirundu''. But the first respondent has come out with a contention that the loan was availed from the third respondent not for the film ''Thavamai Thavamirundu'' but for the film ''Solly Adippen''. Those rival contentions will have to be ultimately decided by the Court in the suit laid by the third respondent. But such a stand of the first respondent in the said suit does not seem to have provided the applicant any cause of action to lay the present suit. As far as the production of the film ''Solly Adippen'', there is no privity of contract between the applicant and the first respondent. It is not the case of the applicant that the first respondent borrowed loan from the applicant for the production of the film ''Solly Adippen''.
It is true that this Court passed an order directing the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in each of the suits filed by the second and third respondents to give clearance of the release of the film Thavamai Thavamirundu After all, the applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to the credit of those two suits as per the direction of this Court and no such order was passed by this Court at the instance of the first respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the first respondent, the entire amount deposited by the applicant is in tact. Neither those suits were terminated nor was the amount permitted to be drawn by either of the parties. Therefore, the suit itself appears to be a pre-mature one. If at all the applicant had been unnecessary dragged to the Court in those two suits and was burdened on account of debt incurred by the first respondent when he had no nexus with the production of the film ''Thavamai Thavamirundu'', the applicant would have taken up the matter to the Appellate Forum, challenging the direction of this Court to make the deposit to get clearance for the release of the film ''Thavamai Thavamirundu''.
The Court finds that the application lacks prima facie case. With the available materials on record, it has also been shown by the first respondent, at this stage, that the suit is bereft of cause of action.
Learned Counsel for the applicant cited the authority reported In Satyam Infoway Ltd. Vs. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Honourable Supreme Court his held as follows:
Weighed in the balance of comparative hardship, it is difficult to hold that the respondent would suffer any such loss as the appellant would unless an injunction is granted. The respondent can carry on its business and inform its members of the change of name. We are conscious of the fact that the grant of an interlocutory order may disrupt the respondent''s business. But that cannot be seen as an argument which should deter us from granting relief to the appellant to which we are otherwise satisfied it is entitled.
Yet another authority was also cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant reported in M/s. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Coca Cola Company and others, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observes as follows.
In order to protect the defendant while granting an interlocutory injunction in his favour the court can require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking so that the defendant can be adequately compensated if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.
As the applicant has failed to establish prima facie case in the application filed by him, the question of weighing the relative hardship or the balance of convenience does not arise for consideration. Further, when the first respondent has shown before the Court, at this stage, with the available materials that the suit has been laid pre-maturely even before the rights of the applicant got crystallized, the question of granting any order of injunction as against the first respondent directing the applicant to give an undertaking to adequately compensate the first respondent in case the uncertainty is cleared in favour of the first respondent as held in the latter authority, would not arise.
In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs he has sought for in these two applications. Therefore, both the applications stand dismissed.