Rayudu Vision Media Ltd vs Indiasign Pvt Ltd

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent in respect of interim prayers sought by the petitioner.

Petitioner has filed M A No. 111 of 2021 in view of the observations  in the last order dated 23.4.2021. The respondent has opposed the interim

prayers on the basis of further materials in the M.A. as well as the materials available with the main petition.

There appears no good reason to doubt the correctness of accounts maintained by the respondent at this stage. The arrears of more than Rs. 1

crore has been consistently outstanding since long and definitely for a period of more than thirty days. The justification for not paying the arrears as

given in paragraph 17 of the MA are on two counts. The first deduction of Rs. 62 lakh and odd is for alleged shortcomings in the services of the

respondent pertaining to periods up to February 2018 i.e. more than three years old but not backed by any contemporaneous  letters or mails to

support the claim or deduction.

The other defence is based on a claim for Rs. 1.14 crore approximately. Prima-facie, this claim has to be directed against some other parties with

whom the petitioner had agreements, some of which are on record. The respondent is not a party to those agreements.

The agreement between the parties authorises the respondent to effect discontinuation of services even on one day notice in case the outstanding dues

are more than thirty days old.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, no prima-facie case is found in favour of the petitioner for grant of interim protection, more so, when it has

declined the offer of the respondent that the services will be restored if 50%Â Â of the claimed amount is paid immediately and balance in another

instalment within a month or so. The interim prayer for directing the respondent to restore the services to the petitioner is, therefore, declined at this

stage. It will be open for the petitioner to approach the respondent with suitable offers and make payments for restoration of services on the basis

of mutual understanding and such payments, if made, will be subject to the result of this petition.

As prayed on behalf of respondent, six weeks’ time is granted for filing reply and counter claim, if any. For the purpose of reply, the M. A. No.

111 of 2021 filed for amendment of the main petition may be treated as allowed and, therefore, reply should be to the amended case of the petitioner

in the light of M. A. No. 111 of 2021.

It will be open for the petitioner, in the meantime, to file a rejoinder after receipt of the reply.

Post the matter under the head “For Directionsâ€​ on 7.7.2021.