This commercial court appeal challenged the dismissal of an interim injunction application. The petitioner sought to restrain the distributor from disbursing profits pending a suit claiming a commision/share in a film project. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEERUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL NO: 36 OF 2022
Commercial Court Appeal Under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 aggrieved by the order dated 01-09-2022 in l.A.No. 401 ot 2O22 in COS No. 31 I 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad.
Between:
Jayaprakash Rao Dhote, S/o Mr. Satyanarayana Rao, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, F/o Skill Arcade Apartment, D.No.B-3-981l122Flat No.302, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500 073, Telangana State Email.jp.pilluO9@qmail com
...APPELLANT/ Petitioner / Plaintiff
AND
Mumbai Mumbai City, Maharashtra - 400 013 Email shario.patelzee.com kinat.sisodiazee.com
...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents / Defendants
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent No.5 in disbursing the 33percentage ofprofit share of respondents No.1 to 3 in the film The Kashmir Filespending disposal of the above appeal .
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. E. MADAN MOHAN RAO, Senior Counsel for PUTREVU PRABFIAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l to 3 : SRI SfIYAM S AGRAWAL
Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI V.V. RAMAKRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI l. RAMANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: SRI C.V.V. PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 : None appeared
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
PNR, J. & JSR, J, CO.CMA-No.36 of 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JTISTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
COM.CA.No.36 OF 2022
JUDGMENT: ( Ce, tne Hon'bte Sri Justie J. Sreeniws Rtn I
This appeal adses out ofthe order dated O1.09.2022 passed, by the District Judge, for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad in I.A.No.4O I of 2022 in COS.No.3 L of 2022 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking direction to restrain the respondent No.5 from disbursing the prolit share of the respondents 1 to 3 from the profits of the filrn "The Kc.shinii Fites", pending disposal of the suit.
PNR, J. &JSR,J. CO.CMA.No.36of 2022
the process of production of movie, "The Kashimin Files" and requested him to continue in the production of the lilm for the purpose of negotiations with respondents 4 and 5 so that they ca-n obtain best commer:cial terms. Tre petitioner-alleged that the respondents 1 to 3 have requested his services for ancillary services; viz., negotiations, entering into memorandum of understandings, production agreements, liaisoning betweenthe respondents ald to participate in the preparation of releaseplan for the hlm and to facilitate and supervise all the marketing and promotional activities in respect of the hlm. Respondents I to 3 have agreed to pay remuneration equivalent to 33olo of theprolit share that would be received by them from the said film.The fiIm," 1"he Ka-shimiri Files" was ',ritten ald directed by VivekRanjan Agnihotri i.e., the designated pa,rtner of respondent No.4and produced by respondents I to 3- At the initial request of respondents l to 3, the petitioner rendered services and interacted with respondent No.4 and brought all of them to a common platlorm lor production o[ the said film in execution of memorandum of understanding amongst the respondents on 23.1O.2O19 and it was done at the instance of respondent No.7.
3
PNR, J. &, JSR, J. CO-CMA.No.36 of 2022
3.2 On 28.10.2019 a meeting was held at the residence of respondent No.2, who had invited him and respondent No.7. In the said meeting, an oral agreement was arrived to get the services of the petitioner on condition of paJament of professional charges. Respondents 1 to 3 have agreed to pay 33o/o of share in their profit sharing out of the said lilm. On the instructions of respondent No.2, he visited Mumbai on 3O. 10.2019 with an object to secure the best commercial deal related to the said film and thereafter he made 25 round trips from Hyderabad to Mumbai for negotiations with respondents 4 and 5 and concluded co-prodlrction agreement. The petitioner claims that he participated in preparation of the release plan of the said film, facilitated the marketing and promotional activities, for which the respondents 1 to 3 hawe booked flight tickets for his round trips from Hyderabad to Mumbai.
3.3 On 31.10.20 19 on the instructions of respondents 1to 3, the petitioner attended the meeting with the representatives of respondent No.S and on 01.11.2018 the respondent No.2, 7 ald the petitioner attended the meeting with the director of the film, who is the designated partner of respondent No.4 - On 26.09.2020 film co-production agreement was arrived between respondents 1,4 and 5 with the efforts of the petitioner, wherein the co -production agreement reconcile profit share in the ratio of 40:3O:3O arnong the respondents
4
PIVBJ&JSR,J CO.CMAIo-36 of2022
l, 4 and 5. tt is stated that the memorandum of understandingwas executed between the respondents I to 3 and respondent No.4 andthe novation agreement was sought to have been execute d on 22.03.2021. -fhe petitioner clains that in the e-m2l! dated 29-09.2021 sent by respondent No.6 on behalf of respondents I to 3 to the responderlt No.4 it was requested to give credit of"co-producer" of thesaid film to him. He further claims that there are multifarious exchartgeof e-mail communic:rtions betu,een him and the respondents,which demonstrates his significant involvement in production of thesaid film and the said filrrr hit box oflice and derived huge profits.
3.4 White things stood thus, the grievance of the petitioneris that the respondents 1 to 3 have breached the oral agreernent a.ndremoved the title of the petitioner from the screen titles as" co'producel'and have not paid the agreed sharc profit to hirn. He got issueda legal notice on 26 .4.2022 demanding respondents I to 3 to pay 33%of his share out of their profit share. Respondents 1 to 3 hawe repliedfor the said notice denying the claim of share of the petitioner blltagreed to reinstate his narne as" co-prod.ucers" a.nd they admittedthe involvement, right and entitlement of the petitioner's profit shareof lo/o only out of total cost of production as com mission.
5
PNR, J. & JSR, J. co.cMA.No.36 0f 2022
3.5 Now the main grieva-r"rce of the petitioner is that the profit derived out of the said lilm production, the respondent No.5 has right to release the profit shares to the respondents t to 4 and if the said share amount is released to them, it is very diflicult for him to get his 337o share. The petitioner claims that he got prima facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour. He liled COS.No.31 of 2022 seeking rendition of accounts and payment of his share. Pending disposal of the main suit, he has also filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule I and 2 of CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.5 from disbursing the prolit share of respondents I to 3 towards the prolit of the film " Tl-.e Kashimir Rles".
o
PNR, J- & JSR, J CO CMA.No.36 of 2022
claimed 33olo share in their prof-rt, which is absurd and illegal. Though number of e-mails were exchanged between them are filed but there is no mention in any of the emails regarding agreement and payment of share in the proht.
7
PNR, J. & JSR, J. CO.CMA.No.36 ot 2022
respondent No.4 and by the said date there was no involvement of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner used to visit Mumbai lor his production work regarding several movies and for all such work he is entitled to only commission but not profit. Respondents 1 to 3 have denied that the petitioner has not facilitated execution of memorandum of understanding, co-production agreement, novation agreement dated 22.3.2O2 I.
8
PIVR, J &JS& J CO.CMA.No.36 of 2O22
only their agent or broker and nothing more. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 sought lor dismissal of the petition, as the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands.
9
PNR, J- & JSR, J. CO.CMA.No.36 of2022
PNR, J. &JSR,J- Co.CMA.No.36 of 2022
which was produced by the respondent Nos.l,4 and 5. It is averred ttrat the petitioner acted as a broker for the respondents 1 to 3 for the project " Raja Raja Chora" and upcoming hlm " Karthikega-?". It is averred that the respondent No.2, who approached the petitioner to help the respondent No. 1 in execution of co-production agreement. According to him, it is averred that towards the contribution of the service of the petitioner, it was agreed that his name would be shown as co-producer in l.he screen titles. Respondent No.6 emphatically denied that there is any profit sharing agreement between the petitioner and respondents 1 ar,'d 2. He claims that he also co-produced films and there is no prolit share agreement between him and the producer. Respondent No.6 further contendcd that the petitioner works as a broker and he is not entitled to claim any share in the project. He denies the oral agreement between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 and as pe r the understanding between the pt:titioner and the respondent No-1, the petitioner worked as broker for execution of the coproduction agreenrent and in return the respondent No. 1 agreed that the name of the petitioner would be shown as the
11
PNR, J. & JSR, J. CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022
co-producer in the screen titles of the movie. Since the film derived huge profits, the petitioner has been claiming 33%o of share in the prolit of the respondents 1 to 3. He further contended that only to arm twist the respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner filed the present petition. It is further stated that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands and that the respondent No.7 is the text book example of a colluding party in the suit. According to respondent No.6, there is no balance of convenience in favour of tlle petitioner; and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
l'2
PNBJ&JSR,J CO.CMA.No.36 of2022
According to respondent No.6, the oral agreement took place in his presence in(he residence of respondent No.2.
Whetler the court can grant temporary injunction in fauour of tLrc petitioner and against the respondent No.S to restrain it from making the payments of moneg to the respondents 1 to 4?
13
PNR, J. & JSR, J- CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022
i) The petitioner i-s not abLe to place enough material now to proue ttrc exi.stene of oral agreenent regarding remuneration.
ii) TLe affidauit of th.e respondent No.7 cannot be relied ort now.
iii) The petition-er did not inuest money for production of ttrc film, whereas tte respondents 1 to 3 irtuested moneA. On this count, tle balance of conueruiene is in fauour of the respond.ents 1 to 4 and not in fauour of tle petitioner.
iu) Since the claim of the petitioner is onlg a moneA clct-im, he can, on proof of hts entitlement, realbe the sczme u-tith interest uhen an injury if ang can be cc> mpe nsated bg moneg and interest thereon, it u-till not c<> nsidered as ineparoble loss or injury.
u) The petitioner, therefore, is not e ntitled to the te rnporary relief as cLaimed bg him and he shall be let to go to proue his entitlement to suit claint on trial.
PX& ./. & JS& J. co.cMA.No.36 0f2022
l5
PNR, J. & JSR, J CO.CMA-No.36 of 2022
respondent No.2 invited respondent No.7 and t here an oral agreement was arrived to get the services of the petitioner on condition of payment of professional charges and the AS respondents t to 3 have agreed to pay 33o/o of prof-rt share would be received by the respondents I to 3 from the hlm as professional service charges rendered by the petilioner and also offered to pass on title credit in the hlm to the petiioner as "coproducel for which the petitioner has accepted the said offer and rendered his services till the release of the said film. It is the further case of the petitioner that the entire agreement entered into between the respondent No.2 and petitioner was witnessed by the respondent No.7.
r6
PTVRJ&JSBJ co.cMA.No.36 of2022
memorandum of understanding arnong the respondents 1 to 3 and executed with respondent No.4 under the name and style of "Vivek Agnihotri Creates" and thereafter the petitioner facilitated the respondents to execute a novation agreement on 22.3.2021, as the respondent No.4 stepped into the shoes of "Vivek Agnihotri
Creates".
t7
PNR, J. & JSR, J. CO.CMA.No.36 of2022
in the publicity material, trailer teaser and poster etc., and also make payrnent of 33% out of 3O"h of their profit share to be received from respondent No.S. When the respondents through reply notice dated 28.4.2022 denied the claim of the petitioner but accepted to reinstate his name as "co-producef and also Lo reimburse the expenses. The petitioner instituted the suit before the court below for rendition of accounts of the lilrn and to declare the petitioner's entitlement to 337o proht share out of 30% profit share of respondents 1 to 3 to be disbursed by respondent No.5 ald a-lso for a direction to the respondents I to 3 to pay the same to him. Pending disposat of the suit, the petitioner filed application under Order-XXXIX Rule I and 2 of CPC for grant of temporaqr injunction seeking direction to restrain the respondent No.S from disbursing the prof-rt share of the respondents 1 to 3 from the profits of the film "ft,e Kashirnii t. rtes -
IB
PNR, J. & JSR. J. CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022
material aspects, which are mentioned hereinabove in the preceding paras of this judgment. Whereas the respondents 4, 5 and 6 have stated in their separate counters that the appellant had rendered his services as broker/agent for execution of coproduction egreement and the respondent No.6 specihcally stated in his counter that he has also co-produced hlms and there is no profit sha-re agreement between him and the producer. Respondent No.6 contended that the petitioner is not entitledto claim any share in the project and he denied the oral agreement between the petitioner and the respondents. 1 to 3. Whereasthe respondent No.7 alone has stated in his counter that the appellant has facilitated the respondents 1, 2 and 4 for entering into the memorandum of understanding dated 23.10.20 19 for production of the aforesaid film. Respondent No.7 further awerred in his cor-rnter that respondents I to 3 have agreed to payan amount equivalent to 33oh profit share to the petitioner towards his remuneration.
2I. In support of the contention of the appellant-petitioner, Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel strongly contended Frrstly that the court below without considering the
t9
PNR, J- & JSR, J. CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022
contentions raised by the petitioner and also the documentar;r evidence placed on record has erroneously dismissedthe application frled under Order-XXXIX, Rule t and 2 of CPC for grant o[ temporarSi injunction; He further contended that the seventh respondent liled his counter wherein it is specifically said that the petitioner has facilitated the respondents l, 2 atd 4 along with him for reaching the memorandum of understalding on 23. LO.2OI9 for the production o[ the frlm "TLe Kashimii Files", and he further contended that the second respondent has taken services of the petitioner in making the film project " Tfte Kashimii Files' arrd the second respondent also agreed to pay the profit share amount equivalent to 337o to the petitioner out of the prolit share that would be received by the respondents I and 2 from the said lilm as prolessional charges for the services rendered by the petitioner.
20
PXR,J&JSR,J CO.CMA.No.36 of2022
there being any bonafde reason dismissed the application hled by the petitioner seeking to grant temporar5r injunction.
2t
PNR, J. & JSR, J. CO.C.MA.No. of 2022
grant of temporary injunction, which are settled in law, restraining alienations as well. It was further held that the order granting temporary injunction does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction and calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
22
PNR, J. & JSR, J. CO.CMA-No.36 of 2022
therefore, the court below has rightly dismissed the application lrled by the petitioner under Order-XXXIX Rule I and 2 of CPC in a proper perspective and there are no valid and bonafde grounds which ca-ll for any indulgence of this court. That, the courl below has not committed any irregrlarity or illegality in passing the order under challenge before this Court.
(i) Wltethe'r the appellant is entitled for grant of temporary injunctton restraining the respondent 1Vo.5 in disbursing tle profit share of respondents 1 to 3 from the profits deiued out of the film "tne Kashunti Files" and that uthether the appellant satisfted the ingred-ients of Order-XXXX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC ?
PNR. J, & JSR. J. CO.CMA.No-36 of 2022
28- Admittedly, the petitioner filed suit COS.No.3L of 2022 seeking for following reliefs, (i) to direct the defendant No.5 to render accounts of the ftl;rn "The Kashmir Files" by way of producing profit and loss account and also to produce the profits share amount of defendant Nos. 1,2 a:rtd 3; (ii) to declare that the plaintiff is entitled 33% profit share out of 30o/o of defendant Nos.1,2 and 3 share of the profits of the ftlm "TLe Kasfunir Files" be disbursed by the Defendant No.5 and direct the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 to pay the same to the Plaintiff; and (iii) to direct the defendants No.1, 2 and3 to reimburse the expenses of Rs. 10 Lakhs incurred by the plaintiff towards expenses of boarding, lodging and local transport during the period of production and till release of the said hlm 'The Kashmir Files". Along with the suit the petitioner Iiled I.A.No.4OL of 2022, for grant of injunction restraining the respondent No.S from disbursing the profit sha-re of the respondents I to 3 from the profits of the fiLrt*The Kashimii Fi/es", pending disposal of the suit.
,- )
24
PA'R, J. & JSR, J CO.Cl,{A.No.36 of 2022
petitioner has lailed to satisfy the ingredients for gra-nt of injunction as reqrrired under Order-XXXIX Rule I and 2 of CPC i.e., prima facie case, balance ol convenience ald irreparable loss and injury.
25
PNR, J. & JSR, J. CO-CMA.No.36 of 2022
of I.A.No.334 of 2OL7 in O.S.No. 108 of 2O17 seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated I 1.3.2014 against the first defendant directing him to perform his part of the agreement by receiving the balance sale consideration IN respect of the suit schedule property and in case of his failure to do so, to enable the plaintiff/first respondent to get the same performed through the process of court and to deliver vacant possession of the property. While dismissing the appeals, the coordinate bench of the AP High Court held in paragraph 14 of the said judgment dated 25.OI.2O22 that Section 52 of the Transfer o[ Propertlr Act does not operate as a bar to the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule I and 2 ol CPC, in the discretion of the trial court, on fulfilment of pre-conditions for grant of temporar5r injunction, which are settled in law, restraining alienations as well. The principle laid down in the above jrrdgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand as the petitioner is seeking rendering of accounts and claiming 33o/o profit share basing upon the oral agreerrlent and the same has to be established aJter futi-fledged trial
P/VR,J&JSRJ CO,CMA.No.36 of 2022
27
I
PNR, J. & JSR, J. CO.CMA.No.36 of 2022
or irregularity in ttre impugned order passed by the tria-l Court for this Court to set aside the same, take a different view and grant interlocutory relief, prayed by the petitioner.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
sd/- M. vIJAYABHASKAR JoINT REGISTiRAR //TRUE coPY// t/ SECTIONOFFICER
fl fft"prin"ipalSpecial Court in the Cadreof District Judge for Trial and '' oi.o".ur "i Commercial Disputes' Hyderalcad' ,.6;T;'ii;'s"tili;uiREVU.pn--neHnKffiAdvocateloPUcl
HIGH COURT
DATED:10/0212023
ORDER
I j9 STATE 4c.'<br>lcu sx trq $t i
()
1.
I
COMCA.No.36 of 2O22
DISMISSING THE COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS q)a 9oa-r*\43
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to grant of temporary injunction restraining respondent No.5 from disbursing profit shares?
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the application for restrained payment of profit shares?
Whether this court should interfere with the discretion of the trial court on questions of injunction?
Jayaprakash Rao Dhote
1. N//s. Abhishek Agarwal Arts LLP.
2. Mr. Abhishek Agarwal
3. Mr. Tej Narayan Agarwal
4. I AM Bhuddha Entertainment and Media LLP(IBEL)
5. M/s. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
P. Naveen Rao
J. Sreenivas Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
