Dismissed

R.Ayubkhan v. S.Nanthagopal

Madras HC10 Sept 2018CS/220/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a suit for specific performance and injunction regarding the film '96' by granting a compromise decree. The parties had settled via a memorandum of compromise recorded through mediation, which the court formalized into a decree with additional clauses regarding the release date and lifting of a prior stay.

What did the court decide?

A decree was passed in terms of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 05.09.2018, with additional clauses releasing the film and specifying the release date.

R.Ayubkhan Vs S.Nanthagopal — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 10.09.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

C.S.No.220 of 2018

¶7

R.Ayubkhan .. Plaintiff Vs. 1.Mr.S.Nanthagopal Proprietor of Madras Enterprises No.54, Velautham 2^nd Street Saligramam Chennai-600 093 2.Sun TV Networks Ltd., No.73, Murasoli Maran Towers MRC Nagar Main Road MRC Nagar Chennai- 600 028 .. Defendants This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order IV Rule 1 O.S. Rules, Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to direct the 1^st Defendant to specifically perform all the terms of the Agreement dated 14.03.2017 including by completing the final shooting schedule and releasing the film “96” forthwith and delivering the completed print and the publicity material at least 15 (fifteen) days prior to the release of the flm “96”; to direct the 1^st Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,37,525/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty-Five Only) as interest on the advance amount for the late release of the film “96”; to direct 1^st Defendant to pay an interest of 36% per annum compounded quarterly on a sum of Rs.55,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs only) from the date of this plaint till the date of release of the film “96”; to grant a permanent injunction restraining the 1^st Defendant

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

from licensing, assigning or transferring the copyrights in the film “96” to any third party in a manner that would be prejudicial to the plaintiff and against the letter and spirit of the Agreement dated 14.03.2017; to grant a permanent injunction restraining the 2^nd Defendant from exercising the copyrights licensed to it on an exclusive basis in the film “96” and further licensing, assigning or transferring the copyrights in the subject film to any third party in a manner that would be prejudicial to the plaintiff and for cost of the suit.

¶11

For Plaintiff : Ms.Rajamani Ponnu
For Mr.K.Harishankar
For Defendant : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
Mr.M.V.Swaroop, learned counsel on record for sole plaintiff,

¶12

Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel on record for first defendant and Mr.M.A.Vimal Mohan, learned counsel on record for second defendant are before this Commercial Division.

¶13

To be noted, there is a sole plaintiff and there are two defendants in the main suit. Therefore, all the parties to this lis are represented by their respective counsel.

¶14

In and by proceedings/order dated 29.08.2018 of this Commercial Division, at the request of all the aforesaid counsel, this suit was referred to Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre ('TNMCC' for brevity) under the aegis of this Court.

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

Thereafter, there have been mediation sessions on 31.08.2018 and 05.09.2018. Mediation report has since been received. It is seen that the parties have arrived at a settlement and the same has been reduced to a joint Memorandum of Compromise signed by all the three aforesaid parties to the lis. This joint Memorandum of Compromise is dated 05.09.2018 and the same shall be referred to as 'said Memorandum of Compromise' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶18

It is seen from the records and it is also reiterated in the submissions before me by all three learned counsel that the representatives of all the three parties to the lis were present before TNMCC for recording the said Memorandum of Compromise.

¶19

All the aforesaid three learned counsel request that the main suit itself be disposed of by way of a compromise decree in terms of the said Memorandum of Compromise. While making such a request all three learned counsel add that there are two aspects of the matter which need to be clarified and they are as follows:

¶20

i) Vide order dated 29.08.2018 in O.A.No.747 of 2018 in

¶21

this suit, an undertaking that the suit movie being '96' shall not be released i.e., theatrical release and all other forms of

¶22

release until further orders was recorded. This order will now stand lifted and the parties are at liberty to release the said movie.

¶23

The aforesaid movie i.e., '96' shall be released on any

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

day after 30.09.2018 and the exact date of release will be informed by the first defendant to the plaintiff at least seven clear days in advance and that this has been arrived at by consensus as part of the proceedings before TNMCC.

¶27

Though the aforesaid two points have not been specifically articulated in the said Memorandum of Compromise, the aforesaid two clauses also shall be added to the decree in addition to the clauses in the said Memorandum of Compromise.

¶28

In the light of all the parties to this lis having been present before TNMCC for recording the said Memorandum of Compromise, all the three learned counsel request that presence of parties for recording the said Memorandum of Compromise in this Commercial Division may please be dispensed with. This request is acceded to.

¶29

In the light of the narrative supra, there shall be a decree in the main suit in terms of the said Memorandum of Compromise i.e., Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 05.09.2018 with sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph 6 supra as addanda clauses to clauses in said Memorandum of Compromise. The Joint Memorandum of Compromise and the aforesaid Mediation Report of TNMCC shall form part of the decree. No costs.

10.09.2018

Index : Yes/No

gpa/kan

Note: Issue Judgment and decree by 17.09.2018.

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.SUNDAR, J.

gpa/kan

C.S.No.220 of 2018
10.09.2018

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Ayubkhan v. S.Nanthagopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ayubkhan v. S.Nanthagopal

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

A.D.Padmasingh Isaac Vs a.Giridharan

M/S.Pearl Media Vs Ms.Rajshree Bhist

Consim Info Private Ltd. Vs Vinu Mohan

M/S.Mega Foods Product Madras Vs M/S.Itc Ltd.

M/S.Ganapathy Funds Vs M/S.Rajarathnam Construction

b.kannan Vs om skathi enterprises