Allowed

Shashi Bhusan Kumar Yadav v. Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Jan 2020I.P.A./1/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed the applications for exemption of court fees and disposed of the petitions. The judge rejected the claim for indigency applications because the petitioner failed to plead a cause of action to declare an agreement void, instead seeking a declaration of its existence which was not denied by defendants.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of applications for exemption of court fees (IAS 588-89/2020); Rejection of indigency application (IAS 587/2020).

Shashi Bhusan Kumar Yadav Vs Rakesh Cine Media… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- I.P.A. 1/2020

¶4

SHASHI BHUSAN KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Chander Agrawal, Mr. Amar Nath & Mr. Sandeep Dhanuka, Advs.

¶5

Versus

¶6

RAKESH CINE MEDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶8

O R D E R % 17.01.2020

¶9

IA Nos.588-89/2020 (both for exemptions)

¶10

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

The applications are disposed of.

¶12

I.P.A. 1/2020, IA No.587/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) and IA No.590/2020 (under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 read with Sections 141 and 151 CPC)

¶13

The plaintiff has instituted this suit, as an indigent person, along with an application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, against (i) Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Rakesh Kumar, (iii) Kaminee Kumari, (iv) YouTube and (v) Google India Pvt. Ltd., with the relief no.(a) sought, as under:

¶14

“a. To pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant their servants, agents, dealers, replicators, to declare an agreement-cum-assignment deed 13^th December, 2017 notarized on 19^th March 2018 between Plaintiff and defendants;”

¶15

It is inter alia the case of the plaintiff that he had entered into the Agreement dated 13^th December, 2017 with the defendant no.1, of which the defendants no.2 and 3 are Directors, for the plaintiff, a Bhojpuri singer, to I.P.A. 1/2020 Page 1 of 2

¶16

sing songs in Bhojpuri language and for the defendant no.1 to market the same, including by uploading on the platforms of defendants no.4 and 5 and for sharing of the revenues.

¶17

However the claim in the plaint to the aforesaid effect is found to be contrary to the Agreement dated 13^th December, 2017 between the parties. 6. Moreover, the plaintiff in relief paragraph (a) has sought declaration of existence of the Agreement and which does not appear to be denied by the defendants no.1 to 3 also in the pre-suit correspondence. The plaintiff has neither sought declaration as void of the Agreement nor any ground for declaration as void of the Agreement has been pleaded, inspite of the plaint running into 67 pages. 7. This is a classic plaint, to demonstrate that unnecessary verbosity in pleadings, leads to essential facts required to be pleaded remaining to be pleaded. 8. Though opportunity has been given to the counsel for the plaintiff to show that the relief of declaration as void of the Agreement has been claimed or to show the grounds pleaded for declaration of the same as void, but the counsel for the plaintiff fairly admits that there is no such plea. He pleads a mistake. 9. Thus, for the reliefs claimed, no cause of action has been pleaded and at least the first relief claimed, in the correspondence preceding the filing of this suit, does not claim to be controverted by the defendants no.1 to 3. Though a number of other reliefs are also claimed in the plaint but the same would be contrary to the Agreement, validity whereof is not challenged in the plaint. 10. In view of the aforesaid, need to enquire into the indigency claimed by the petitioner does not arise.

¶18

Rejected.

¶19

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

¶20

JANUARY 17, 2020/ „gsr‟..

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

I.P.A. 1/2020

Shashi Bhusan Kumar Yadav v. Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Bhusan Kumar Yadav v. Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Gupta Alias Ravi Prakash Vs Director Directorate of Health Services

Dolby International Ab & Anr. Vs Universal Digital Connect Limited & Ors.

Tricolor Hotels Ltd. & Ors. Vs Friendship Time. Com Private Limited

M/S Jainco Buildcon Private Limited Vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Smt. Prabha Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt. Rukmani Sharma & Ors.

Rajinder Prasad Aggarwal Vs Dr. Anil Kumar Narang