Dismissed

Pvp Capital Limited v. Thirrupathi Brothers FilmMedia

Madras HC28 Oct 2021CONT P/1592/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court adjudicated two contempt petitions filed for non-compliance of a court undertaking. The court observed that the assured amount was not referred to arbitration and the underlying dispute causes adversity. Finding no deliberate intention to violate the order, the court closed the contempt petitions.

What did the court decide?

Both contempt petitions closed; no punishment imposed; connected applications closed; no costs.

Pvp Capital Limited Vs Thirrupathi Brothers FilmMedia — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Cont.P.No.1592 & 1593 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 28.10.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Cont.P.No.1592 & 1593 of 2016, Sub A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2016 and 165 of 2021

¶7

PVP Capital Limited Rep. By its authorized signatory V.R.Arasu KRM Centre, 9^th Floor, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031 .. Petitioner in both petitions Vs.

¶8

Thirrupathi Brothers Film Media Pvt. Ltd.

¶9

Rep. By its Managing Director

¶10

Nammalvar Lingusamy

¶11

Nammalvar Lingusamy

¶12

Nammalvar Subash Chandra Bose .. Respondents in both petitions

¶13

Prayer in Cont.P.No.1592 of 2016:

¶14

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act praying to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the Order this Court dated 12.01.2016 in O.A.No.981 of 2015.

¶15

Prayer in Cont.P.No.1593 of 2016:

¶16

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court

¶17

Act praying to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the Order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Court dated 12.01.2016 in O.A.No.980 of 2015.

¶18

1/5

¶19

Cont.P.No.1592 & 1593 of 2016

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prasad for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.A.R.L.Sundarasesan, Senior counsel for Mr.D.Prabhu Mukund Arunkumar For M/s.MeenaBai & Co., : Mr.A.Chidambaram Chennai (3rd Party Creditor) For M/s.Baba films, : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan Coimbatore (3rd Party Creditor) Sr. Counsel for Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi ******

¶21

COMMON ORDER

¶22

Parties in both petitions are one and the same and the issue involved in both petitions is also common in nature, hence, heard together and disposed of by a common order.

¶23

The contempt petitions are filed mainly on the ground that an undertaking given before this Court is violated by the contemnors. The contemnors are present. A joint affidavit of undertaking was filed before this Court by the contemnors when injunction is sought as against the release of movie ''Rajini Murugan'' directed by the contemnor on the basis of money dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. An affidavit filed before

¶24

this court indicates that the contemnor undertaken to pay the outstanding

¶25

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

¶26

2/5

¶27

Cont.P.No.1592 & 1593 of 2016

¶28

loan amount of Rs.1,70,00,000/- (Rupees one Crore seventy lakhs only) to

¶29

the petitioner on or before 29.2.2016 or 10 days before the release of movie ''Idam Porul Yeval''. However, the agreed amount is not paid. It is undisputed that the movie ''Idam Porul Yeval'' was offered as security as against the release of another movie, ''Rajini Murugan''. The movie ''Idam Porul Yeval'' is still not released.

¶30

Now, the instant contempt petitions are filed to punish the contemnors on the ground of non compliance of undertaking given before this Court. It is to be noted that Section 9 application is filed as an interim measure to preserve or secure the rights of the applicant. It is also well settled that any order passed under Sec.9 of the Act, within 90 days of the said order, the matter has to be referred to arbitration. However, no dispute whatsoever referred to arbitration so far. Though order was passed by this Court on 21.4.2016, the same clearly exhibits no manifest intention on the part of the petitioner is to refer the matter to arbitration. Be that as it may. Though undertaking has been given before this Court to pay the outstanding amount, the contemnor also offered other movie directed by them as security and still that movie is not released. Though it appears that the undertaking as given before this court is violated, the Court has to see the circumstances https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under which such undertaking has been given before this Court. When the

¶31

3/5

¶32

Cont.P.No.1592 & 1593 of 2016

¶33

application has been filed in last minute as against the release of a movie, an

¶34

undertaking has been given by the contemnor to pay the outstanding amount. It is not even crystalised and the dispute is not even referred to arbitration. Therefore, mere undertaking to pay the outstanding amount which is related to non payment of loan amount and the respondents due to various circumstances facing adversity, this Court is of the view that such circumstances cannot be construed as deliberate intention of the respondents to commit contempt of Court.

¶35

When a person though given an undertaking due to various circumstances become contemnor and facing adversity, mere undertaking cannot be construed as deliberate act on the part of the petitioner to violate the orders of the Court. Therefore, considering the nature of undertaking and the circumstances under which the undertaking has been given by the respondents to pay the amount on or before 29.6.2016 or before the release of movie 'Idam Porul Yeval'' ' whichever is earlier and considering the fact that the petitioner has not taken steps to refer the dispute to arbitration, this Court do not find any deliberate intention on the part of the respondents to violate the orders of this Court, more particularly undertaking given by them.

¶36

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

¶37

4/5

¶38

Cont.P.No.1592 & 1593 of 2016

¶39

5 Accordingly, both the contempt petitions are closed. It is well

¶40

open to the petitioner to work out remedy as per law. Consequently,

¶41

connected applications are also closed. No costs.

¶42

SD/-

¶43

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶44

vaan

¶45

//Certified to be true copy//

¶46

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶47

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of

¶48

the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶49

GS/28/01/2022

¶50

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

¶51

5/5

Pvp Capital Limited v. Thirrupathi Brothers FilmMedia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pvp Capital Limited v. Thirrupathi Brothers FilmMedia

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

M C Lakshmi Narayanan Vs Mrs Sasikala

The Chief Engineer Vs M/s.Pure envior Engineering

Freight Bridge Logistics Vs A1-Arsath Entrprises

Mr.v.Prakash Vs Mr.T.Sunil Kumar

M/s. Embassy Services Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr.Chandrasekar B Vs Embassy Residency Apartment Owners Association

M/s.Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Mr/Shanmugaraj P, and Another