Allowed

Bharath Kumar Huf v. Kjr Studios Proprietor Jayaram Kotapadi

Madras HC18 Jul 2024Arb Appln/42/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an arbitration application seeking vacation of an interim injunction. It observed that the full movie revenue was already paid to producers and directed the deposit amount be returned to the distributor for disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Arbitration Application disposed; deposit of Rs.3,44,46,529 returned to respondent 4 for disbursement to distributors.

Bharath Kumar Huf Vs Kjr Studios Proprietor… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Arb.Appln. Nos.42 & 276 of 2024

¶2

Arb.Appln. Nos.42 & 276 of 2024 O.A.Nos.4 and 43 of 2024 and A.No.2312 of 2024

¶3

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

¶4

This Court vide order dated 22.01.2024 made in O.A.No.43 of 2024 granted an order of ad-interim injunction, whereby, the fourth respondent therein, viz, PVR Inox Ltd., was directed to pay all the amounts payable to the respondents 1 to 3 directly to the applicants for a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/-. Seeking vacation of the said order, the applicants have filed Arbitration Application No.276 of 2024.

¶5

2. Subsequently, when the matters came up for hearing on 24.04.2024, this Court passed an order, the operative portion of which is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶6

“7. Taking into consideration of the submissions

¶7

made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:

¶8

i) The 4 th respondent is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount (Rs.3,44,46,529/-) to the credit of O.A.No.4 of 2024 within a period of 2 weeks from today (24.04.2024).

¶9

ii) Upon such deposit, the Registrar General, High Court of Madras is directed to deposit the said amount in any interest accruing Fixed Deposit with renewal period of 6 months.”

¶10

1/4

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

Arb.Appln. Nos.42 & 276 of 2024

¶13

3 . Thus, by virtue of the latter order passed by this Court on 24.04.2024, the 4 th respondent was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,44,46,529/- which was earned by virtue of displaying the movie “Ayalaan” in certain theatres.

¶14

4 . The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that, when O.A.No.4 of 2024 came up for hearing, this Court granted interim injunction on 04.01.2024 for releasing the movie “Ayalaan”. Thereafter, a Compromise Deed was entered into between the applicants and the respondents/producers and the same was recorded before this Court on 11.01.2024. Subsequently, the movie was released on 12.01.2024 and prior to the date of release of the aforesaid movie, a Distributorship Agreement was entered in between the parties on 25.09.2023 and 11.01.2024. When the movie was released, the 100% amount was paid to the producers 1 to 3 on 12.01.2024 by the Distributors. Since the entire amount has been paid to the producers 1 to 3, no other further amount is liable to be paid by the respondents 4 to 12, who are none other than the Distributors to the producers.

¶15

5. Thus, taking into consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:-

¶16

2/4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Arb.Appln. Nos.42 & 276 of 2024

¶19

i) Since the 4 th respondent has already deposited a sum of

¶20

Rs.3,44,46,529/- to the credit of O.A.No.4 of 2024, Registry is directed to return the said amount along with interest accrued thereon to the 4 th respondent. Thereafter, the 4 th respondent is directed to disburse the amount to the distributors as per the entitlement of the share amount from and out of the collection.

¶21

6. This Arbitration Application No.276 of 2024 is disposed of

accordingly.

18.07.2024

3/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Arb.Appln. Nos.42 & 276 of 2024

¶28

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.,

¶29

¶30

Arb.Appln. Nos.42 & 276 of 2024 O.A.Nos.4 and 43 of 2024 and A.No.2312 of 2024

¶31

18.07.2024

¶32

4/4

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Bharath Kumar Huf v. Kjr Studios Proprietor Jayaram Kotapadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath Kumar Huf v. Kjr Studios Proprietor Jayaram Kotapadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ks Propmart Pvt. Ltd. and another

Kotam Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs M/s.Sarvan Seva Point and another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Rep By Its Authorised Signatory R Vasu Vs Veeraselvam P

Mohammed Anifa Biriyani Vs M Sabari

S Anbu Vs M/s.Shriram Finance Limited

M/s.Bajaj Finance Limited Vs R Suriyakishore