Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1771 (MAD)

Mannan Ali Hussain v. Mannan Thiyagarajan

2013-04-25

M.JAICHANDREN, M.M.SUNDRESH

body2013
Judgment :- M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. These Original Side Appeals have been preferred against the orders, passed by a learned single Judge, by which the applications filed in O.A.No.580 of 2012 and A.No.3129 of 2012 respectively under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC and Order 39 and Rules 1 and 2 CPC, were dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. In spite of the fact that the 1st respondent has filed a caveat in both these appeals, none appear on their behalf. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent had entered into a partnership with him, for the purpose of production of movies. The partnership fell apart, and therefore, it was mutually agreed between them, by an agreement, dated 25.2.2010, by which, the 1st respondent has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3 Crores. Pursuant to the said agreement, the 1st respondent has also executed cheques acknowledging the debt. However, according to the appellant, the 1st respondent did not honour the commitment, as per the agreement entered into between them, but, instead, proceeded to release the movie. Since there are no other properties owned by respondents 1 and 2, the applications were filed before the learned single Judge. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the applications filed before the learned single Judge will have to be allowed, as the agreement is not in dispute between the parties, viz., the appellant, on the one hand, and respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that the said respondent is a bona fide agreement-holder, as per the agreement entered into between the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent. The first copy right of the movie has been assigned in favour of the third respondent. Therefore, in view of the fact that the third party interest has arisen, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the applications. Furthermore, the learned single Judge has considered the scope of Order 38, Rule 5 CPC and Order 39 and Rules 1 and 2 CPC, while dismissing the applications and hence, no interference is required. 5. We do not wish to go into the merits of the appeals. Furthermore, the learned single Judge has considered the scope of Order 38, Rule 5 CPC and Order 39 and Rules 1 and 2 CPC, while dismissing the applications and hence, no interference is required. 5. We do not wish to go into the merits of the appeals. During the course of the arguments, we put a question to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. By way of a reply, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that, to show his bona fides, the 3rd respondent would furnish a bank guarantee, for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs [Rupees fifty lakhs only], provided sufficient time is given, without prejudice to his rights to contest the case. We feel, in the interest of justice, that the said statement made by the learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent, will have to be acceded to. 6. In such view of the matter, after recording the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, we direct the 3rd respondent to furnish a bank guarantee, for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs [Rupees fifty lakhs only], to the credit of the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the said order, we make it clear that there is no impediment for the release of the movie, which is the subject matter of the appeals on hand. We further make it clear that it is open to the appellant to proceed against respondents 1 and 2 seeking attachment of any other property owned by them. As and when such application is filed, we request the learned single Judge to decide the same, without being influenced by the earlier orders passed in O.A.No.580 of 2012 and A.No.3129 of 2012, as well as the orders passed by us, today, in these appeals. The Original Side Appeals are ordered accordingly. No costs. M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2013 are closed.