Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4740 (MAD)

First v. Second

2011-12-08

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2011
Judgment : VINOD K. SHARMA, J. 1. The plaintiff/applicant in a suit for recovery filed in the year 2007 has moved this application for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendant, their men, agents, persons claiming through them from releasing the Tamil Movie namely Osthi in the City of Chennai, Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu distribution areas, without depositing the suit claim of Rs.34,75,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only). 2. The pleaded case of the plaintiff/applicant is, that the plaintiff had purchased the movie rights against minimum guarantee, under the agreement executed between the parties. The agreement was executed in the year 1998 and the film was released in the year 1999. As per the terms of the agreement, it was open to the plaintiff/applicant to deduct an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only), out of the first collection towards the adjustment of the minimum guarantee, and the balance collection was to be shared by 50% falling to the share of the plaintiff/applicant and remaining 50% to others as per the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff could not recover the minimum guarantee amount, on the release of that film. 3. The case of the plaintiff/applicant is, that the defendant/non-applicant, thereafter, paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) in the year 2000 but thereafter did not pay any amount in terms agreed to. 4. The plaintiff/applicant filed a suit in the year 2007, for recovery of the amount due under the minimum guarantee agreement executed in the year 1998. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff/applicant, that the applicant had a right to exploit the exhibition of the film for a minimum period of five years which only ended in 2004, and therefore the suit was filed within three years after expiry of five years period. 6. It is also the case of the plaintiff/applicant that now rights have been purchased by respondent No.2, a company registered under the Companies Act, for exhibiting the Tamil Movie Osthi. 7. The plaintiff/applicant therefore prays for injunction, on the ground that the respondent No.2 though a company registered under the Companies Act but the shareholding is that of the respondent No.1, and his family members. Therefore, it is open to the plaintiff to claim the amount from respondent No.2 also, by lifting the corporate veil. 8. 7. The plaintiff/applicant therefore prays for injunction, on the ground that the respondent No.2 though a company registered under the Companies Act but the shareholding is that of the respondent No.1, and his family members. Therefore, it is open to the plaintiff to claim the amount from respondent No.2 also, by lifting the corporate veil. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant on the face of it is misconceived. The company registered under the Companies Act has its own independent legal entity which is independent of its shareholders and the directors. The difference between the firm and the company is, that the liability of the shareholders in the company is limited, liability which is not the case in firm. The respondent No.2, cannot be fastened with any liability of respondent No.1, as contended. 9. The respondent No.2 is also not a party to the main suit to determine any transaction of respondent No.2 by lifting the corporate veil as agreed by the learned counsel. 10. It is not understood as to how the respondent No.2 which is not a party to the suit, can be restrained from releasing the movie during the pendency of the suit for recovery of money against respondent No.1. 11. The application being totally misconceived, is ordered to be dismissed.