This court dismissed an application by defendants in a suit for money recovery, rejecting their claim that production materials are the subject matter of the suit and need preservation under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC.
Application to appoint Advance Commissioner to take inventory of production materials is dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
A.No.1507 of 2015 in C.S.No.821 of 2009
Pyramid Saimira Production International Limited, Rep. by its Director N.Narayanan, C1, II Floor, “Temple Tower” 672, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
..Plaintiff
-Vs-
1.M/s.Rajkamal Films International, Rep. by its Partners Mr.Chandra Hasan,
2.Mr.Chandra Hasan Partner M/s.Rajkamal Films International
3.Mr.Kamal Hasan, Partner M/s.Rajkamal Films International,
All at New No.4, Old No.172, Eldams Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018.
..Defendants
A.No.1507 of 2015:
1.M/s.Rajkamal Films International, Rep. by its Partners Mr.Chandra Hasan,
2.Mr.Chandra Hasan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Partner M/s.Rajkamal Films International
2
3.Mr.Kamal Hasan, Partner M/s.Rajkamal Films International,
All at New No.4, Old No.172, Eldams Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. ..Applicants/Defendants
-Vs-
Pyramid Saimira Production International Limited, Rep. by its Director N.Narayanan, C1, II Floor, “Temple Tower” 672, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
..Respondent/Plaintiff
Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, take an inventory preparing a list of all the items, articles / goods, etc., made, prepared and recorded, for or relating to or connected in any manner howsoever with, the project or production of, the picture “Marmayogi” lying or available at No.1, Elcot Avenue, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119 and / or any other place, or studio and submit the list to this Hon'ble Court.
Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing, the Court made the following order:
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This application has been filed seeking appointment of a
Commissioner to take inventory of certain goods, which according to the
3
plaintiff have been created for the purpose of shooting of the film "Marmayogi", which are stored in its godown at Sholinganallur.
2.The suit in C.S.No.821 of 2009 is a simple suit for recovery of money on the ground that the plaintiff had advanced monies to the defendants for production of the movie and the defendants have not done anything for production of the said movie. It is claimed that the funds provided by the plaintiff have been diverted for yet another movie produced by the defendants.
3.In defence, the defendants would contend that they had made various preparations for commencing production of the movie. Since the storyline is a historical one, which involves creation of so much infrastructure to begin the shooting itself. Therefore, according to the defendants, they had invested all the monies in creation of such infrastructures and all those materials that were created for the purposes of shooting are lying in the godown of the defendants situate at No.1, Elcot Avenue, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600119. Claiming that these materials created for the purposes of shooting are the subject matter of the suit and they have to be protected under Order 39 Rule 7 of C.P.C., this application has been taken out.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.I have heard Mr.K.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr.A.Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the
4
respondent.
6.By no stretch of imagination, can it be said these materials, which are lying in the godown of the defendants are subject matter of the suit. Order 39 Rule 7 of C.P.C., is meant for preservation of property, which is the subject matter of the suit. Admittedly, no property is in dispute in the suit in C.S.No.821 of 2009, I therefore, see no reason to appoint a Commissioner to take inventory or preservation of these materials. This application fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. JJ 16/08/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether materials lying in a godown are subject matter of a suit for recovery of money.
Whether an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed to take inventory of such materials under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC.
M/s. Rajkamal Films International
Pyramid Saimira Production International Limited
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
