Dismissed

K.Kalaiyappan v. M/s Rv Media Solutions

Madras HC24 Mar 2021A/7132/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Master of the High Court at Madras dismissed applications filed by third parties seeking impleadment as respondents/defendants in a suit regarding film distribution rights. The court held the applicants were not necessary or proper parties, failed to clarify the contract dispute, and shifting the litigation burden on them was impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Applications for impleadment of the applicants as respondents/defendants were dismissed.

K.Kalaiyappan Vs M/s Rv Media Solutions — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24th DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

A.Nos.7132 to 7137 of 2018 in C.S. No.601 of 2018 M/s.RV Media Solutions, Rep. by its Partner Mr.M.Ravindran, No.28A, ABM Avenue, R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028. ... Plaintiff -Versus1. Mr.M.S.Sharavanan, Proprietor M/s.Sri Green Productions, Prameela Towers, 4th Floor, No.13B, Pulliyur 1st Lane, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.

¶7

Mr.C.J.Jayakumar, Proprietor M/s.CAMEO Films No.59, Vijayaraghava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ... Defendants A.Nos.7132 and 7133 of 2018:

¶8

K.Kalaiyappan, 27,Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Chennai-600 002. ..Applicant/3^rd Party

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

M/s.RV Media Solutions, Rep. by its Partner Mr.M.Ravindran, No.28A, ABM Avenue, R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028. ...1^st Respondent Plaintiff

¶13

Mr.M.S.Sharavanan, Proprietor M/s.Sri Green Productions, Prameela Towers, 4th Floor, No.13B, Pulliyur 1st Lane, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. ..2^nd Respondent/1^st Defendant

¶14

Mr.C.J.Jayakumar, Proprietor M/s.CAMEO Films No.59, Vijayaraghava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ...3^rd Respondent/ 2^nd Defendant A.No.7132 of 2018:

¶15

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order impleadment of the Applicant/3^rd Party as a Respondent in O.A.No.795 of 2018 in C.S.No.601 of 2018.

¶16

A.No.7133 of 2018:

¶17

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order impleadment of the Applicant/3^rd Party in the above suit in C.S.No.601 of 2018 as the 3^rd Defendant.

¶18

A.Nos.7134 of 2018:

¶19

K.Kalaiyappan, 27,Meeran Sahib Street, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mount Road, Chennai-600 002.

¶20

..Applicant/3^rd Party

¶21

¶22

-Versus-

¶23

1.M/s.RV Media Solutions, Rep. by its Partner Mr.M.Ravindran, No.28A, ABM Avenue, R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028.

¶24

...1^st Respondent Plaintiff

¶25

Mr.M.S.Sharavanan, Proprietor M/s.Sri Green Productions, Prameela Towers, 4th Floor, No.13B, Pulliyur 1st Lane, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. ..2^nd Respondent/1^st Defendant 3. Mr.C.J.Jayakumar, Proprietor M/s.CAMEO Films No.59, Vijayaraghava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ...3^rd Respondent/ 2^nd Defendant 4.QUbe Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd., $2, Dr.Rangachari Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. ..4^th Respondent / 3^rd RespondentGarnishee 5,Real Image Technologies Pvt. Ltd., No.78, Third Street, Balaji Nagar, Royapetah, Chennai -600 0014. ..5^th Respondent/ 4^th RespondentGarnishee 6.Prasad Xtreme Digital Cinema Network, 28,Arunachalam Road, Saligramam, Chennai-600 093. ..6^th Respondent/5^th RespondentGarnishee

¶26

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order Impleadment of the Applicant/3^rd Party as a Respondent in Application No.6482/2018 in C.S.No.601 of 2018.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

A.Nos.7135 and 7136 of 2018: A.Alagarswamy, No.6, Parthasarathipuram, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

¶30

..Applicant/3^rd Party

¶31

¶32

1.M/s.RV Media Solutions, Rep. by its Partner Mr.M.Ravindran, No.28A, ABM Avenue, R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028. ...1^st Respondent Plaintiff

¶33

Mr.M.S.Sharavanan, Proprietor M/s.Sri Green Productions, Prameela Towers, 4th Floor, No.13B, Pulliyur 1st Lane, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. ..2^nd Respondent/1^st Defendant 3. Mr.C.J.Jayakumar, Proprietor M/s.CAMEO Films No.59, Vijayaraghava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ...3^rd Respondent/ 2^nd Defendant A.No.7135 of 2018:

¶34

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order Impleadment of the Applicant/3^rd Party in the above suit in C.S.No.601/18 as the Defendant.

¶35

A.No.7136 of 2018:

¶36

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order Impleadment of the Applicant/3^rd Party as a Respondent in O.A.No.795/18 in C.S.No.601/18.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

A.No.7137 of 2018: A.Alagarswamy, No.6, Parthasarathipuram, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. ..Applicant/3^rd Party

¶40

¶41

1.M/s.RV Media Solutions, Rep. by its Partner Mr.M.Ravindran, No.28A, ABM Avenue, R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028. ...1^st Respondent Plaintiff 2. Mr.M.S.Sharavanan, Proprietor M/s.Sri Green Productions, Prameela Towers, 4th Floor, No.13B, Pulliyur 1st Lane, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. ..2^nd Respondent/1^st Defendant 3. Mr.C.J.Jayakumar, Proprietor M/s.CAMEO Films No.59, Vijayaraghava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ...3^rd Respondent/ 2^nd Defendant 4.QUbe Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd., $2, Dr.Rangachari Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. ..4^th Respondent / 3^rd RespondentGarnishee 5,Real Image Technologies Pvt. Ltd., No.78, Third Street, Balaji Nagar, Royapetah, Chennai -600 0014. ..5^th Respondent/ 4^th RespondentGarnishee 6.Prasad Xtreme Digital Cinema Network, 28,Arunachalam Road, Saligramam, Chennai-600 093. ..6^th Respondent/5^th RespondentGarnishee

¶42

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Impleadment of the Applicant/3^rd Party as a Respondent in Application No.6482/2018 in C.S.No.601/18.

¶43

¶44

These Applications coming on this day before this court for hearing, the Court made the following order:

¶45

All these applications have been filed by third parties to the suit.

¶46

2.A.Nos.7132 of 2018, 7133 of 2018 and 7134 of 2018 have been

¶47

filed by the applicant, N.Kalaiyappan to implead himself as respondent /

¶48

defendant in O.A.No.795 of 2018 in A.No.6482 of 2018 and in C.S.No.601

¶49

of 2018 and A.No.6482 of 2018.

¶50

3.In the affidavits filed in support of the said applications, it had been

¶51

stated that he is a bonafide right holder of the distribution of the suit picture IMAIKKA NODIGAL for Chengelpet district having acquired the sum under a Minimum Guarantee Agreement dated 26.07.2018 for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,40,00,000/- in addition to making a deposit of Rs.10,00,000/.

¶52

4.A.Nos.7135 of 2018, 7136 of 2018 and 7137 of 2018 have been

¶53

filed by the applicant, A.Alagarswamy to implead himself as respondent / defendant in O.A.No.795 of 2018, A.No.6482 of 2018 and in C.S.No.601 of 2018.

¶54

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.In the affidavits filed in support of the said applications, it had been

¶55

stated that he is a necessary party to the suit, since he has claimed to be a

¶56

¶57

bonafide right holder of the distribution of the suit picture IMAIKKA NODIGAL for North Arcot district having acquired the same under a Minimum Guarantee Agreement dated 21.08.2018 for a valuable consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- in addition to making a deposit of Rs.10,00,000/.

¶58

6.Heard Mr.A.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.K.Harishankar for the respondent.

¶59

7.A counter affidavit had been filed by the plaintiff in which it had been stated that the suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the theatrical, exhibition and exploitation rights of the film 'IMAIKKA NODIGAL' and for permanent injunction only against the 1^st and 2^nd defendants from releasing the said movie or in the alternate for a direction against the 1^st and 2^nd defendants to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- together with interest from 03.03.2017 till date of realization. It had been stated that the applicants herein are neither necessary parties nor proper parties. If at all they are required to assist the Court, on summons, they can come forward to depose evidence in Court relating to the facts which are known to their knowledge.

¶60

8.A reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff claims right over the

¶61

said movie IMAIKKA NODIGAL pursuant an agreement entered into with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the 1^st defendant on 03.03.2017. The 1^st defendant appears to have habit of

¶62

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

¶63

¶64

entering into agreements. This is reflected by the fact that the 2^nd defendant also claims to have an agreement with the 1^st defendant but dated 07.01.2017. Both these agreements will have to be tested during the course

¶65

of trial. The agreements will have to be spoken by the parties to the agreement namely, the plaintiff / 1^st defendant / 2^nd defendant. The present applicants are neither parties to the said agreements nor have their permission been obtained prior to execution of the said agreements. Their right commenced after the two agreements had been executed. They can neither speak about the validity of the said agreement nor can they speak with respect to any of the contentions raised either by the plaintiff nor by the 1^st / 2^nd defendants relating to the circumstances surrounding the said two agreements.

¶66

9.The proper person who can depose evidence in Court are the

¶67

plaintiff, 1^st / 2^nd defendants. The applicants herein may be interested in the outcome of the suit but they can never be called upon to speak about the said agreement. Impleading them would only be multiplying the number of defendants to no effect. If at all they are summoned, both Kalaiyappan and

¶68

Alagarswamy may come forward but they can only depose about their distribution rights in Chengelpet and North Arcot Districts. Those two

¶69

agreements are not the subject matter of the present suit. They will have to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ abide the result of the suit.

¶70

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

¶71

¶72

10.Viewed from any angle the applicants are neither necessary parties

¶73

nor proper parties. They cannot be classified as parties interested under

¶74

Order I Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff has cause

¶75

for grievance as against the 1^st and 2^nd defendants. The plaintiff will have to establish the reliefs sought in the plaint. The burden can never be shifted. If the plaintiff discharges that burden, then the onus would shift to either 1^st or 2^nd defendants to establish their rights or whatever they have stated in the written statements. They cannot shift the onus on either one of the present applicants.

¶76

11.The only conclusion which one can reach is that these

¶77

applications will have to suffer an order of dismissal and accordingly, the applications are dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶78

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶79

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

¶80

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

K.Kalaiyappan v. M/s Rv Media Solutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kalaiyappan v. M/s Rv Media Solutions

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

Mr.M.Anees Ahmed Vs B.Firdous Ahmed and 6 others

M/S Prime Plast a Partner Ship Vs M/S Prime Tele Extrusious Ltd.

M/S Devi Pesticides Pvt., Ltd. Vs M/S Krushak Unnati Chemicals

Mr.a.D.Padmasingh Issac and another Vs K.Lakshmanan

Vijaya Nahar Prop., Vs 1.M/S.MEENAKSHI Impex

M/S Mc Dowell & Company Ltd., Vs Southern Agrifurance Industies