Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

P.S.Srinivasan Vs P.S.Vaidyanathan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2016)

Home
Madras HC
2016
P.S.Srinivasan Vs P.S.VaidyanathanP.S.Srinivasan v. P.S.Vaidyanathan

Dismissed

P.S.Srinivasan v. P.S.Vaidyanathan

Madras HC16 Nov 2016CS/939/2009

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16 . 1…

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

A

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.11.2 0 1 6

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

C.S.No.9 3 9 of 2009

And

A.No. 133 of 2010

P.S.Srinivasan

... Plaintiff

Vs.

P.S.Vaidyanathan

Mr.Arjundas Pokardas

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
P.S.Srinivasan
respondent
P.S.Vaidyanathan
respondent
Mr.Arjundas Pokardas
respondent
Gemini Color Laboratory No. 28 New Bangaru Colony West KK Nagar

Coram

AI extract

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 16 Nov 2016 · November
Registered: 21 Oct 2009
Case no.: CS/939/2009

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from C.v. Karthikeyan

Hotel Runs Vs v.T.Saleemunissa
15 Nov 2016
M/S.Raj Petro Specialities Pvt. Vs M/S.Universal Logistics
14 Nov 2016
V.Swamynathan Vs the State by
12 Nov 2016
A.Alamelu Vs a.Venkatachalam and 3 Others
16 Nov 2016

Cite this judgement

P.S.Srinivasan v. P.S.Vaidyanathan, CS/939/2009 (MAD), decided on 16 November 2016.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

Parties & counsel

Dismissed

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

Gemini Color Laboratory No. 28 New Bangaru Colony West KK Nagar, Chennai – 600 078

... Defendants

PRAYER : This Civil Suit filed under Order VI Rule 1 O.S. Rules and Order VII Rule 1 CPC, praying for the following reliefs:

(a) for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the limited copyright namely the executive and entire world Satellite Television Rights, including India with rights to transfer into U-matic tape, disc, or any formats of his choice either by himself or his order for a period of 99 years in the picture “Unnai Kann Theduthe” starring Udaya, Manya, Vinu Chakravarthy, Delhi Ganesh, Kalairani, etc., and directed by Ratheesh Ramayya for perpetual period;

2

(b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, officers, etc., from, interfering or infringing the plaintiff's limited copyright namely the exclusive and entire World Satellite Television Rights, including India with rights to transfer into U-matic tape, disc, or any formats of his choice either by himself or his order for a period of 99 years in the picture “Unnai Kann Theduthe” starring Udaya, Manya, Vinu Chakravarthy, Delhi Ganesh, Kalairani, etc., and directed by Ratheesh Ramayya for perpetual period; and

(c) for cost of the suit.

For Plaintiff : No appearance

For 3^rd Defendant : M/s. R.Maheswari

JUDGMENT

There was no representation by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The

plaintiff had not responded by giving necessary instructions to him.

2. A memo was also filed that he had also sent an intimation and the

cover sent by the learned counsel had been returned. This Court had directed the

office to also issue notice to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the office issued notice and on 01.11.2016. The bailiff personally went to the address of the plaintiff but was

not able to serve notice.

3

3. It is very clear that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the

case. The suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, with costs of the third defendant.

Consequently, connected application is also dismissed.

16.11.2016

Vsg

4

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

vsg

C.S.No.9 3 9 of 2009

And

A.No. 133 of 2010

16.11.2 0 1 6

5

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

CNR

HCMA010982392009

Topic

Contract and Commercial Disputes

Bench

C.v. Karthikeyan

Disposal

DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION

The Board of Trustee of the Vs Samudra Ship Management

16 Nov 2016

MrS.S.Sivakami Vs Meigyanamurthy and 5 others

16 Nov 2016