Dismissed

M/S.Pyramid Saimira Production v. Kamal Hassan

Madras HC9 Aug 2018OA/744/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of two applications seeking interim injunction and attachment before judgment to restrain the release of the film 'Vishwaroopam II'. The petitioners argued breach of a production agreement by the first respondent. The court dismissed the applications, holding that issues regarding breach were for the main trial, the petitioner approached the court at the eleventh

What did the court decide?

The interim injunction application and the attachment before judgment application were dismissed.

M/S.Pyramid Saimira Production Vs Kamal Hassan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) RESERVED ON: 07.08.2018 DELIVERED ON : 09.08.2018 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶4

O.A.NO.744 OF 2018 AND A.NO.6039 OF 2018 IN C.S.452 of 2016 C.S.452 of 2016: M/s.Pyramid Saimira Productions Intrnationsl Limited, Rep.by its, Director K.S.Srinivasan, Chettinadu Towers, Rani Seethai Hall Buildings, 6th Floor, NO.672, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. ...Plaintiff Vs. Mr.Kamal Hasan, New No.4, Old No.172, Eldams Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. ...Defendant O.A.NO.744 OF 2018 and A.NO.6039 OF 2018 : M/s.Pyramid Saimira Productions Intrnationsl Limited, Rep.by its, Director K.S.Srinivasan, Chettinadu Towers, Rani Seethai Hall Buildings, 6th Floor, NO.672, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. ...Applicant/Plaintiff https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vs.

¶5

¶6

Mr.Kamal Hasan, New No.4, Old No.172, Eldams Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. ...Respondent/Defendant 2 Aascar Films Pvt, Ltd, Rep.by its, Director Mr.Ravichandran No.9, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083.

¶7

3 M/s.Gemini FX

¶8

Rep.By its Manager (Lab-Incharge, Vembuliamman Kovil Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600 092.

¶9

QUBE

¶10

No.42, Range Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600004.

¶11

UFO no.178/3 & 4 J.B.Towers, Kumaran Colony Main Road,

¶12

Vadapalani, Chennai -600 093.

¶13

M/s.Prasad Xtreme Digital

¶14

Rep.by its Managaer (Lab-Incharge), Arunachalam Road,

¶15

Saligarmam, Chennai- 600 093. Respondents/Garnishess

¶16

O.A.NO.744/2018:

¶17

Original Petition praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased

¶18

to grant Interim Injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendant,

¶19

his men, agents, servants, distributors or anybody claim through

¶20

or under them from in any manner alienating, releasing

¶21

distributing, exhibiting or exploiting the picture title https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "VISHWAROOPAM II" Tamil, Telugu (Dubbed) & Hindi-Colour) anywhere in the World either through the Respondents 2 to 6/Garnishees 2 to

¶22

¶23

6 or in any other manner Whatsoever pending disposal.

¶24

A.NO.6039/2018:

¶25

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order attachment before Judgment by issue of a Pro-Order Prohibiting the Respondents 2 to 6/Garnishees 2 to 6 from in any manner parting with or releasing the picture titled "VISHWAROOPAM II" Tamil, Telugu (Dubbed) & Hindi-Colour)to the

¶26

Respondent/Defendant or any body claiming through or under him for release/exploitation pending disposal.

¶27

These Applications coming on this day before this court for

¶28

hearing and the court made the following order:

¶29

This common order will govern the aforesaid two applications,

¶30

i.e., O.A.No.744 of 2018 and A.No.6039 of 2018, which shall be referred to as 'injunction application' and 'garnishee

¶31

application' respectively for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶32

2 In the main suit, there is a sole plaintiff, i.e., 'Pyramid Saimira Productions International Ltd.' ('PSG' for brevity) and a lone defendant, i.e., Kamal Haasan. The sole

¶33

plaintiff in the main suit, i.e., PSG is the sole applicant in

¶34

both applications herein. Likewise, lone defendant in the main

¶35

suit is the first respondent in both applications herein. Five

¶36

third parties qua the main suit have been arrayed as respondent

¶37

Nos.2 to 6 in the instant applications and they shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ collectively referred to as 'Garnishees' for the sake of convenience and clarity. One Aascar Films Pvt. Ltd., has been

¶38

¶39

arrayed as respondent No.2 in both applications herein and this

¶40

Aascar Films Pvt. Ltd. is the contesting garnishee. This contesting garnishee shall be referred to as 'AFL' for the sake of brevity.

¶41

(a) PSG entered into a joint venture with one 'Raajkamal

¶42

Films International' ('RKFI' for brevity) on 02.04.2008. This

¶43

joint venture was reduced to writing by way of memorandum of

¶44

understanding ('MOU' for brevity) dated 02.04.2008. This joint

¶45

venture agreement / MOU dated 02.04.2008 is the genesis of this

¶46

lis, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'suit agreement'.

¶47

Suffice to say that the suit agreement is for the joint production

¶48

of a feature film in Tamil and Hindi, which goes by the name

¶49

'Marmayogi'. This feature film 'Marmayogi' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'suit movie' for the sake of brevity, convenience

¶50

and clarity. It has also been covenanted in the suit agreement

¶51

that the sole defendant in the main suit Kamal Haasan shall be the Director as well as hero of the suit movie.

¶52

(b) It is not in dispute before this Commercial Division in

¶53

the hearing that PSG paid a sum of Rs.6,90,00,000/- to RKFI and

¶54

another sum of Rs.3,88,67,000/- to sole defendant Kamal Haasan

¶55

under the suit agreement. Complaining that sole defendant in the

¶56

main suit failed to discharge his obligations under the suit

¶57

agreement by neglecting to commence production of the suit movie,

¶58

to confirm the artists, technicians, to finalise the script, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶59

shooting schedule, etc., PSG sought refund of the moneys paid under the suit agreement. PSG also alleged that moneys paid under

¶60

¶61

the suit agreement to the sole defendant have been diverted for the production of another movie which goes by the name 'Unnaipol Oruvan'. Complaining that sole defendant in the main suit has not refunded the moneys paid under the suit agreement, instant main suit, i.e., C.S.No.452 of 2016 was filed claiming a sum of Rs.5,44,00,000/- together with interest on Rs.4,00,00,000/-. There is also a prayer for costs.

¶62

in dispute in the hearing before this Commercial Division. Three other suits are prior to instant main suit and a brief mention about the same is necessary.

¶63

PSG against RKFI, Kamal Haasan and an another partner of RKFI.

¶64

Considering the scope of the instant applications, suffice to say that this suit was filed inter-alia for recovery of aforesaid

¶65

Rs.6,90,00,000/- paid by PSG to RKFI under the suit agreement.

¶66

Division is informed in the hearing that this suit was filed by sole defendant in the instant main suit, i.e., Kamal Haasan against PSG inter-alia claiming Rs.11,00,00,000/- as damages for breach of suit agreement.

¶67

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶68

(f) Third suit is C.S.No.830 of 2012 which has been filed by

¶69

¶70

Regent Saimira Entertainment Ltd. against RKFI, another partner of RKFI and two other entities. It is not in dispute that 'Regent Saimira Entertainment Ltd.' is the changed name of PSG (changed in accordance with the provisions of law inter-alia under the Companies Act) and the prayer in this suit was for creating first charge over a feature film, which went by the name 'Viswaroopam' which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Viswaroopam 1' for the

¶71

sake of convenience and clarity. This suit is also predicated essentially on the suit agreement and the charge over Viswaroopam 1 was sought to be created on the ground that moneys are due under the suit agreement from RKFI and therefore, PSG is entitled to charge over Viswaroopam 1 which was produced by RKFI.

¶72

the first of the four suits, i.e., C.S.No.821 of 2009 is in a advanced stage and the trial (examination of witnesses) is under

¶73

way. It was submitted that the second and third suits are lying dormant. However, it is not clear as to why the parties to the lis have not sought for joint or simultaneous trial of four suits. Ironically, this is a 'mystery', may be to be in tandem with the title of the suit movie (Marmayogi) as both the counsel before this Commercial Division were unable to say why a joint trial had not been sought for.

¶74

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶75

(h) Under the aforesaid circumstances, it is not in dispute that the movie which goes by the name Vishwaroopam II'

¶76

¶77

(hereinafter referred to as 'said movie') has been produced by RKFI and that the said movie is scheduled for release on 10.08.2018. Under such circumstances, PSG has filed the instant two applications and brought up the same before this Commercial Division for the first time on 03.08.2018.

¶78

record for AFL were before this Commercial Division.

¶79

in the main suit, in the light of the joint common undisputed

¶80

submissions made without any disagreement or dispute by aforesaid two counsel and one senior counsel before this Commercial

¶81

Division, jurisdiction of this commercial division qua the main suit, i.e., C.S.No.452 of 2016 was determined. Thereafter, instant applications were heard.

¶82

can be summarised as follows :

¶83

security for the suit claim;

¶84

agreement, sole defendant did not do anything with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶85

regard to suit movie and therefore, PSG is entitled to refund and PSG is entitled to have the same

¶86

¶87

secured pending suit.

¶88

(b) Submissions of Mr.K.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for sole

¶89

defendant in the main suit (first respondent in the instant applications) can be summarised as follows :

¶90

C.S.No.821 of 2009 in which trial is in progress, the witness on behalf of PSG was unable to say anything

¶91

about diversion of funds. Other parts of deposition

¶92

thus far are also in his favour.

¶93

release of Viswaroopam 1 by taking out an

¶94

interlocutory application in C.S.No.830 of 2012, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶95

same came to be dismissed with costs by a learned Single Judge of this court and the intra court appeal

¶96

¶97

against the same was ultimately withdrawn.

¶98

¶99

on record for AFL made submissions which can be summarised as

¶100

follows :

¶101

(i) AFL is not a garnishee qua sole defendant

¶102

in the main suit or for that matter, RKFI which is the producer of the said movie. In other words, AFL has independent rights in the said movie, independent of RKFI and sole defendant in the main suit.

¶103

(ii) Release of the said movie was widely advertised inter-alia in a website which goes by the name 'Indiaglitz' as early as on 17.7.2018. Besides this, there have been advertisements in all kinds of media for the past one month about the release of the said movie, but PSG has chosen to bring up the instant applications only on 03.08.2018 for the first time before this Commercial Division in the eleventh hour, on the verge of release of the said movie. Such a practice has been deprecated by Courts.

¶104

Rs.40,75,00,000/-. This is an outright purchase and

¶105

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AFL is not holding any money payable to sole

¶106

defendant in the main suit or to RKFI for that

¶107

¶108

matter pending main suit.

¶109

(iv) At least, five movies, which go by the names 'Manmadan Ambu', 'Viswaroopam 1', 'Uthamavillan', 'Papanasam' and 'Thoonga Vanam' which were either produced by RKFI or sole defendant in main suit and

¶110

in which sole defendant has played lead role, have

¶111

been released and PSG did not take any action against those releases, owing to which AFL had every reason to bona fide believe that there is no encumbrance or hindrance in releasing said movie and certain rights in the said movie were purchased on the basis of such bona fide belief for valuable consideration.

¶112

7 Analysis :

¶113

(a) A careful analysis of the rival submissions reveals that

¶114

the entire issue in the instant two applications turn on a very narrow compass. The reason is not far to seek. All the submissions pertaining to non performance of obligations / breach of obligations under the suit agreement and submissions denying the same (asserting performance of obligations and counter allegations) have to necessarily be decided in the main suit.

¶115

Those questions cannot be decided in the instant interlocutory applications because of the scope of the applications and also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ because of the obtaining position that the instant interlocutory

¶116

applications are decided on affidavits and counter affidavits.

¶117

question as to whether PSG is entitled to security pending suit is discussed and analysed.

¶118

application has been taken out inter-alia under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure 1908' (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for brevity) and the garnishee application has been taken out under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. It is not in dispute that the said movie is produced by RKFI, but RKFI is not a

¶119

party to the main suit and has not been arrayed as respondent in

¶120

the instant applications.

¶121

(d) Elaborating on the submission regarding PSG's entitlement to have security pending suit, it was submitted by learned counsel

¶122

for PSG that RKFI was originally constituted by two partners, namely, sole defendant in the main suit and his brother, his

¶123

brother died and therefore, it became a sole proprietary concern by operation of law. This was contested by learned counsel for

¶124

sole defendant as well as learned senior counsel for AFL. To be noted, both are not counsel for RKFI, but their submissions were in their capacity as counsel appearing for partner in RKFI and as counsel appearing for AFL which is a contracting party qua RKFI for purchasing certain rights in the said movie. On this basis, it was asserted that RKFI continues to be a partnership firm and it

¶125

was pointed out that if the submission of counsel for PSG that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RKFI has become a sole proprietary concern by operation of law is to be admitted, RKFI which has produced the said movie may be a

¶126

¶127

different firm. However, this submission was made on a demurrer or in other words, assuming the stand of the counsel for PSG to be correct. These issues can certainly not be decided in the instant applications.

¶128

(e) As mentioned supra, even in the main suit, RKFI is not a

¶129

party. In this backdrop, it is to be seen that AFL is not a garnishee qua sole defendant in the main suit. In other words, AFL does not hold any money in its hand which is payable to sole defendant. It is also asserted and averred before this Commercial

¶130

Division that no money with regard to said movie, which will become payable to sole defendant, will come into the kitty and coffers of AFL even in future, i.e., post release of said movie. This submission was made on instructions and it is recorded. Therefore, it is the stated position of AFL that it is not a garnishee qua sole defendant. It neither holds money payable to sole defendant nor will it get monies payable to sole defendant

¶131

qua said movie, post release. With regard to other garnishees, there is nothing on record to show that they have been served, but

¶132

considering the paucity of time, counsel for PSG chose to pursue instant applications against sole defendant in the main suit and AFL, i.e., respondents 1 and 2 and requested this Court to decide the applications on this basis. The arguments were advanced on this basis.

¶133

(f) AFL has also filed an affidavit dated 7.8.2018 in its

¶134

capacity as garnishee. It has been categorically averred in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affidavit that AFL has purchased theatrical rights and negative

¶135

rights in said movie by way of agreements dated 10.04.2013, a

¶136

¶137

memorandum of agreement dated 11.3.2017 and supplementary agreement dated 13.07.2018. It is the further stated position of AFL that vide said three agreements, AFL has obtained absolute rights qua said movie for valuable consideration and therefore, right of AFL is completely independent of sole defendant in the main suit. This coupled with the stated position of AFL that even in future, post release of said movie, no money is payable to sole defendant which will come into the coffers with regard to said movie and no order can be passed against AFL.

¶138

(g) Further more, as mentioned supra, garnishee application has been filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. The ingredients and parameters necessary for acceding to a prayer under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 are too well settled. Suffice to say that a person seeking relief under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC should be able to establish that there are actions on the part of person against whom relief has been sought, which are intended to defeat the rights of applicant and that such actions are intended to defeat a possible decree in future. There is no categoric and specific allegation in

¶139

this regard.

¶140

guarantee for 50% of the suit claim has been furnished in favour of PSG. It is also not in dispute that the bank guarantee is being

¶141

renewed from time to time and it is kept alive. The claims in C.S.No.821 of 2009 and the instant main suit, i.e., C.S.No.452 of

¶142

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2016 are clearly dovetailed (as both claims arise out of same suit agreement) and there is an existing bank guarantee which is

¶143

¶144

subsisting for 50% of the suit claim in C.S.No.821 of 2009.

¶145

(i) This takes us to the aborted attempt by PSG to stall the release of Viswaroopam 1. An application in this regard, being O.A.No.1069 of 2012 was taken out by PSG (as mentioned supra, in its changed and present name 'Regent Saimira Entertainment Ltd.')

¶146

in C.S.No.830 of 2012. After full contest, the same came to be dismissed with costs. Learned single Judge of this court in and by order dated 08.01.2013, held that PSG is not in any way concerned with the movie Viswaroopam 1. Learned single Judge has also held that charge if any can be created only under Order XXXVIII Rule 5

¶147

CPC and that can be only after fulfilling the conditions stipulated therein. These two aspects have been articulated by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 24 and 22 of the said order. Relevant portion of paragraph 24 and entire paragraph 22 of the said order read as follows :

¶148

Paragraph 24 :

¶149

“24.The plaintiff neither has a prima facie case

¶150

nor is going to suffer any irreparable loss. The plaintiff/applicant is not in any way concerned with the film “Viswaroopam” now to be released

¶151

even as per his own pleadings in the suit. .....”

¶152

Paragraph 22 :

¶153

“22.The Charge can be created by the Court on the

¶154

property in a suit by invoking the provisions of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶155

Order 38 Rule 5 in case any unsecured amount is

¶156

due fulfilling the conditions stipulated therein.”

¶157

¶158

(j) It is also not in dispute that this matter was

¶159

carried in appeal by way of an intra court appeal being

¶160

O.S.A.No.45 of 2013 and the same came to be withdrawn on

¶161

09.01.2017. Learned counsel for PSG has not been able to point out

¶162

that the position has since changed and some new developments have

¶163

taken place thereafter which necessitates this Commercial Division to take a different view now. However, learned counsel for PSG

¶164

pressed into service a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Govindrao Mahadik Vs. Devi Sahai reported in AIR 1982 SC 989 to

¶165

drive home the time honoured parameters and determinants for answering in the affirmative a prayer under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. This is contained in paragraph 58 of the said case law and relevant portion of paragraph 58 reads as follows :

¶166

“58. ...Attachment before judgment is levied where the Court on an application of the plaintiff is

¶167

satisfied that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that

¶168

may be passed against him (a) is about to dispose of

¶169

the whole or any part of his property, or (b) is

¶170

about the remove the whole or any part of his

¶171

property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. The sole object behind the order

¶172

levying attachment before judgment is to give an

¶173

assurance to the plaintiff that his decree if made https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶174

would be satisfied. It is a sort of a guarantee against decree becoming infructuous for want of

¶175

¶176

property available from which the plaintiff can satisfy the decree.....”

¶177

(k) As already alluded to supra in this order, there is no averment that sole defendant in the main suit is taking efforts to dispose of some properties or remove some properties from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which is likely to render a possible decree in the main suit infructuous. Therefore, this judgment does not help PSG in the instant case. Further more,

¶178

in the light of no reason for PSG for not having approached this

¶179

Commercial Division earlier, the principle that it is not desirable to approach the Court in the eleventh hour in cases of this nature also militates against PSG. In any event, 50% of the

¶180

suit claim in C.S.No.821 of 2009 which is part of the claim under

¶181

the suit agreement has clearly been secured by way of bank guarantee and it is not in dispute that the same is subsisting even as of today.

¶182

(l) In the light of the narrative supra, it follows as a

¶183

sequitur and necessary corollary that PSG is not entitled to any relief in the instant applications.

¶184

(m) Before parting with the case, it is made clear that the

¶185

adversaries have to proceed with the main suits as expeditiously as possible. In any event, as the instant main suit is now before the Commercial Division and governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, strict time lines will operate. However, as alluded to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶186

supra, it is a mystery and irony as to why parties have not chosen

¶187

to ask for a joint trial of the aforesaid four suits. In other

¶188

¶189

words, it is a 'mystery' because both counsel for the adversaries

¶190

in the main suit are unable to give any explanation / reason much

¶191

less convincing explanation / reason as to why neither of them

¶192

sought for tagging of suits and simultaneous trial, though it is

¶193

not in dispute that all the four suits arise out of suit

¶194

agreement. 'Ironical' (in the light of factual matrix of this case) because, the suit movie goes by the title 'Marmayogi'.

¶195

four suits in a manner known to law. This Commercial Division is

¶196

very clear in its mind that a joint trial of four suits is not

¶197

only just and desirable, but imperative and non negotiable as it can lead to anomalies and avoidable complications if the suits are not tried and disposed of together.

¶198

Owing to all that have been set out supra, both applications are dismissed. Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

¶199

Dated at Madras this the day of 2018.

¶200

GJM/09.08.2018

¶201

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

M/S.Pyramid Saimira Production v. Kamal Hassan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Pyramid Saimira Production v. Kamal Hassan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sundaramoorthy Vs S.Narana Vadivammal (Died)

V.Krishnamurthy Vs v.Chackrapani

L.Velmurugan Vs the Director of School

S.Paul Raj Vs Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

Mrs.Veena Kumaravel Vs Mr.Sushil Oommen Thomas

Mahindra Consulting Engineers Vs Mr.Prabhash Kumar