Dismissed

M/S.Moser Baer Entertainment v. M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd.

Madras HC17 Sept 2021CRL OP/15340/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed Criminal Original Petitions filed to quash criminal proceedings. It refused to keep the petitions pending despite the petitioners' claim of insolvency and directed the Official Liquidator to participate in trial proceedings before the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. The Official Liquidator is directed to participate in the trial proceedings.

M/S.Moser Baer Entertainment Vs M/S.Sun Tv Network… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.15340 & 15341 of 2011 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015

¶6

1.M/s.Moser Baer Entertainment Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Deepak Puri, No.43, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 110020.

¶7

2.Deepak Puri Managing Director, M/s.Moser Baer Entertainment Ltd., No.43, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 110020.

¶8

..Petitioners / 3^rd & 4^th Accused (in both the Crl.O.Ps) Vs.

¶9

M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd., Represented by its Manager (Programming) Mr.L.Jotheeshwaran, No.4/5, Norton Road, Mandaveli, Chennai – 600 028. .. Respondent/Complainant (in both the Crl.O.Ps)

¶10

Prayer: These Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.Nos.10614 and 10615 of 2010 pending on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and to quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner .. Mr.Rishwanth For D.R.Raghunath (in both Petitions) For Respondent .. Ms.Sneha (in both Petitions)

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

These Criminal Original Petitions had been filed in the year 2011 about ten years back with relation to a calender case of the year 2010 which is also more than ten years back. The 3^rd and 4^th accused are the petitioners herein.

¶15

2.In the interregnum period the 1^st petitioner had gone into liquidation. That cannot give any advantage to the present petitioners herein. Insofar as the present petitions are concerned, it is seen from a perusal of the petitions that the accused are facing charges under Sections 51, 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Sections 406, 411, 418 and 420 IPC.

¶16

3.It is stated that the respondent in the course of the business had purchased copyright of the Telugu cinematography film 'Prasthanam' from the copyright holder namely, 1^st and 2^nd accused for consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- vide agreement dated 13.04.2010. The respondent had further alleged in the complaint that they are the exclusive copyright holder of the said film through all media. It is claimed that the present petitioners were not aware of the said agreement and they had in turn entered into an agreement with the 1^st accused. It is claimed that they had given a public notice in newspaper regarding that particular fact. They came to know about the complaint being lodged and taken on file, only when summons was issued. These are issues which will have to be tried only before the trial court, C.C.Nos.10614 & 10615 of 2010 would have been disposed of more than about half a decade ago had these petitions not been filed.

¶17

4.I find no reasons to hold both the Criminal Original Petitions back on the file of this Court. A request by the learned counsel for the petitioners, owing to the fact that the 1^st petitioner / A3 had become insolvent, some indulgence should be given, is rejected by me.

¶18

5.Let the Official Liquidator participate in the trial proceedings, go back to the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and inform the learned Magistrate that the 1^st petitioner / A3 has gone into liquidation. Let the learned Magistrate take a decision in accordance with law and in manner known to law. The learned Magistrate is also directed to take every step in manner known to law, if summons are issued and if there is any absence on the part of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate. Keeping these Criminal Original Petitions pending on the file of this Court would not be of any advantage either to the petitioners herein or to the respondent.

¶19

6.With the above observations, both the Criminal Original

¶20

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

¶21

Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

smv

¶26

¶27

The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶28

Do Thro The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.M.Sneha, Advocate, S.R.No.47933

¶30

Crl.O.P.Nos.15340 & 15341 of 2011 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015

¶31

GPL(CO)

¶32

RGA(12/10/2021)

¶33

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

M/S.Moser Baer Entertainment v. M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Moser Baer Entertainment v. M/S.Sun Tv Network Ltd.

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

Devaraj, (M/a 38 Yrs) Vs Mrs.D.Pushpa

Kirubasankar (55) Vs Vijayalakshmi (32)

M.Shanmugasundaram,M/a 62 Yrs Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Senthilkumar, M/A.43 Years Vs State Rep by Its

R.Sakthivel Vs State Rep by

Vijaya Ganesh Vs the State of Tamil Nadu