Disposed

M/S Satish Jai and Filims v. M/S Shree Krishna Creations

Telangana HC27 Aug 2018CMA/879/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against an interim injunction order restraining release of a movie was dismissed as infructuous. The court held that the order outlived its purpose as the movie was released on the very date it was restrained. Consequently, the related interim application was also disposed of but without prejudice to the appellant's substantive rights.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and related interim application were disposed of as infructuous; no judgment on merits was recorded.

M/S Satish Jai and Filims Vs M/S Shree… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

and

¶3

The Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud

¶4

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.879 of 2018

¶5

Date: 27.08.2018

¶6

Between :

¶7

M/s.Satish Jai & Films rep. by Gajula Satish, S/o. Sri Lakshmaiah, Gajularamaram, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad

¶8

…
Appellant
And
M/s.Shree Krishna Creations
Rep. by Gowri Krishna Prasad
Gajularamaram, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad
…
Respondent
:
Counsel for the Appellant Mr.P.Rajesh Babu

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

CVNR, J & TA, J CMA.No.879/2018 Date: 27.08.2018

¶11

¶12

Judgment : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶13

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.879 of 2018 (for short ‘the Appeal’) is filed against Order, dated 23-08-2018, in IA.No.1010 of 2018 in OS.No.947 of 2018 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge –cumCommercial Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’).

¶14

When we have queried with the learned Counsel for the appellant as to whether this is a commercial litigation, he has submitted that as the value of the suit is below Rs.1 Crore, the same was not treated as commercial suit and instead, was assigned the number of a original suit.

¶15

A perusal of the order under Appeal shows that the same is ad interim in nature. We, however, find that the said order does not contain any reasons for dispensing with the notice as envisaged under the Proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX CPC.

¶16

Be that as it may. The necessity for us to judge the validity or otherwise of the order challenged in this Appeal is obviated for the simple reason that the injunction only

¶17

CVNR, J & TA, J CMA.No.879/2018 Date: 27.08.2018

¶18

¶19

restrained the appellant from releasing the movie concerned on 24-08-2018.

¶20

Mr.P.Rajesh Babu, learned Counsel for the appellant,

¶21

submitted that so far, the order of injunction has not been communicated to the appellant and that in the absence of knowledge of such injunction order and its communication, the appellant could release the move on 24-08-2018 in 350 centers. The learned Counsel further submitted that till today, the certified copy applied for by the appellant has not been furnished by the Court below.

¶22

Inasmuch as the impugned order of injunction was confined to releasing the movie concerned on 24-08-2018 and on the own showing of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the said movie was released, as scheduled, on 24.08.2018, the said order outlived its purpose. Hence, there is no need for us to adjudicate the Appeal on merits.

¶23

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of as infructuous, however, without prejudice to the right of the appellant to contest the IA as well as the suit before the Court below.

¶24

CVNR, J & TA, J CMA.No.879/2018 Date: 27.08.2018

¶25

¶26

As a sequel to disposal of the Appeal, IA.No.2 of 2018,

¶27

filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶28

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶29

___________________ (T.Amarnath Goud, J)

¶30

Date: 27^th August, 2018

¶31

Note:
Furnish CC by tomorrow.
(B/o)
lur

¶32

CVNR, J & TA, J CMA.No.879/2018 Date: 27.08.2018

¶33

M/S Satish Jai and Filims v. M/S Shree Krishna Creations

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Satish Jai and Filims v. M/S Shree Krishna Creations

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

ParuchuruSrinivasulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Raja Sekhar Reddy, Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue dept., State of A.P.

Gummalla China Pullaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Pampana Verranna, W.G.District Vs State of Ap., Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad

The State of a.P., rep by the P.P., Vs Bichapu Chandraiah

Kadari Venkataiah Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp