Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1772 (MAD)

R. Maheswari v. T. Ramesh

2013-04-25

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2013
Judgment : The petitioner is engaged in the business of hiring equipments for shooting of films. Respondent No.1 is the producer of Cinematographic Films, whereas, Respondent No.2 is their laboratory, wherein, the negatives of the Cinematography film, "SAMAR" were processed and kept in custody on behalf of Respondent No.1. 2. The practice followed in the film industry is that the assignment of copyright over the film is intimated to the laboratory concerned and the laboratory acts in accordance with the instructions of the present copyright holder and gives effect to the transfer of rights to the new copyright holder. 3. Respondent No.1 approached the petitioner for hiring of equipments. The petitioner agreed to supply equipments on the agreed terms and conditions for production of the film originally titled as "SAMARAN" and subsequently changed to "SAMAR". 4. The petitioner continued to supply equipment, requisitioned by the first respondent, based on their assurance and taking into account their standing in the cine industry without insisting on any formality or collecting the caution deposit. 5. Respondent No.1 had agreed that all amounts and dues as per the agreed terms and conditions would be settled before the release of the film "SAMAR". 6. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.58,45,550/-(Rupees fifty eight lakhs forty five thousand five hundred and fifty only) was due towards rent of the equipment, besides, earlier outstanding of Rs.62,00,000/-(Rupees Sixty two lakhs only) towards supply of cinematographic equipment for their film "OSTHE". 7. The petitioner, coming to know that attempts were made to release the film by violating the undertaking and without settling the dues, filed the civil suit for injunction, restraining the respondents in the suit their men, servants, distributors, exhibitors or anyone claiming under them or through them from in any way or causing to part with, hand over, release, exhibit or exploit the negative or positive prints of the film "SAMAR", either with the same title or with any other title or in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the said suit. 8. On 7th of January, 2013, this Court passed the following order:- "The learned counsel for the respondent prays for short adjournment to finalise the bills raised by the plaintiff/applicant for supply of equipments for production of the film "SAMARAN". 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent states that the film shall not be released till the next day of hearing. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent states that the film shall not be released till the next day of hearing. On request, adjourned to 22.01.2013." 9. Inspite of the undertaking given to this Court, the respondent issued an advertisement in the "Daily Thanthi" on 8th and 9th January 2013 that the film would be released on 13th January 2013. 10. Pursuance to the advertisement, the respondent released the film on 13th January 2013, without the permission of this Court. This act was in clear violation of the undertaking given to this Court. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, wherein, the stand taken by Respondent No.1 is, that the petitioner filed this contempt petition on 09.01.2013 when negotiation for compromise were in progress and there was no cause of action with the petitioner to file the contempt petition. 12. It is also the case of the respondent that in terms of compromise, first instalment was paid on 11.01.2013, and it was on account of the settlement arrived at between the parties, that the film was released on 13.01.2013 with the consent and concurrence of the petitioner. 13. It is also the stand of the respondent, that he has been deceived by the petitioner by suppressing the execution of Memorandum of Compromise as well as in not disclosing the payment of a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five lakhs only) by the respondent to the petitioner. The averments made in the contempt petition are also denied. It is also submitted that the application moved by the petitioner, under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was dismissed by this Court. 14. In the counter, it is not disputed that on 07.01.2013, undertaking was recorded on behalf of the respondent that he will not release the film till the next day of hearing, i.e., 22.01.2013. 15. It is submitted that the petitioner could not inform the order to his advertising agency viz., M/s.Minarat Pulicity, Chennai, with whom he had entered into agreement. Therefore, it was because of want of specific instruction not to publish the advertisement in the newspaper, that the agency advertised as if the film was going to be released on 13.01.2013. 16. 15. It is submitted that the petitioner could not inform the order to his advertising agency viz., M/s.Minarat Pulicity, Chennai, with whom he had entered into agreement. Therefore, it was because of want of specific instruction not to publish the advertisement in the newspaper, that the agency advertised as if the film was going to be released on 13.01.2013. 16. The settlement was arrived at between the parties on 10.01.2013 was writing, in which, the respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty five lakhs only on 11.01.2013 and issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) dated 31.01.2013 and cheque for Rs.55,00,000/-(Rupees fifty five lakhs only) dated 10.05.2013. 17. It was on receipt of the cheque, that Memorandum of Compromise was entered into between the parties. 18. In sum and substance, the case set up by the respondent is that the parties had entered into compromise, under which, the petitioner agreed to receive the money in instalments. Therefore, no ground is made out to proceed further with contempt proceedings. The respondent also tendered unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court and also undertook to comply with his obligation under the compromise signed on 10.01.2013. 19. It is therefore, prayed that the contempt petition be dismissed. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that inspite of the undertaking given to the Court, the film was released on 13.01.2013 without paying the total amount due and payable to the petitioner. It is prayed that the respondent should be punished for having committed contempt of Court by violating the undertaking. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand vehemently contends, that the disobedience cannot be said to be deliberate or intentional, but was under the mistaken belief, as the parties have entered into settlement. It was on account of settlement that respondent released the film on 13.01.2013, especially when a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty five lakhs only) was transferred to the account of the petitioner, and was accepted. The cheques for balance payment were also issued. 22. It is also the contention of the respondent, that as parties had entered into compromise, therefore, no ground is made out to proceed further in the contempt. 23. On consideration, I find that it is proved beyond doubt that the respondent is guilty of having committed contempt of this Court by deliberately disobeying the undertaking given to this Court. 22. It is also the contention of the respondent, that as parties had entered into compromise, therefore, no ground is made out to proceed further in the contempt. 23. On consideration, I find that it is proved beyond doubt that the respondent is guilty of having committed contempt of this Court by deliberately disobeying the undertaking given to this Court. 24. It is not open to the parties to violate the undertaking given to the Court on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The respondent should have approached this Court for permission to release the film or for modification of the order passed by this Court. 25. Once the order was in force, it was binding on the respondent and it was not open to the respondent to violate the undertaking given to this Court. It is thus proved that the respondent intentionally and deliberately violated the undertaking given to this Court. The defence that in view of compromise between the parties it was done cannot be a defence, as parties by compromise cannot violate the undertaking nor compromise the contempt. Consequently, the respondent is to be convicted for having committed contempt of this Court. For the question of sentence, post the matter on 04.06.2013.