Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. S.S. Enterprises & Ors  INSC 364 (11 March 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (3) 385 1996 SCALE (2)869
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
this case, admittedly, there was an agreement dated February 28, 1985 which M/s. S.S. Enterprises, a partnership firm had with R.
Venketraman for the distribution of film 'Aag Ka Dariya'. It would appear that
subsequently there was an agreement dated 7.10.1993 in favour of the petitioner
M/s. Avtar Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the same film. In respect of
the distribution of the said film now three suits are pending. The first suit
was filed by R. Venkataraman in the City Civil Court at Bombay wherein he has claimed that the
agreement dated January
28, 1985 was cancelled
and has sought an injunction against M/s. S.S. Enterprises. The second suit,
viz., Suit No.1136/95 was filed by the petitioner on the Original Side of the
High Court of Madras for declaration of his rights under the later agreement
and also for an ad-interim injunction which was granted. That interim
injunction which was confirmed by the single Judge and was upheld by the
Division Bench on appeal which is the subject matter of SLP (C) Nos.27695-
96/95 pending in this Court. Therefore, we need not go into the correctness or
otherwise of the injunction granted in that behalf. The third suit was filed by
the respondent S.S. Enterprises, viz., Suit No.3793/95 on the Original Side of
the Bombay High Court subsequent to the order of the injunction granted by the
learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The respondent had an ad-interim
injunction in that suit. We are informed that contempt proceedings are pending
pursuant to the order of injunction granted by the learned single Judge. In
this behalf also, we need not go into that controversy as well and the parties
are at liberty to have the matter disposed of by the learned Single Judge in
those contempt proceedings.
only question is: whether the suit pending in the Bombay High Court requires to
be transferred to the Original Side of the High Court of Madras to be tried
along with the Suit No.1136 of 1995 which is a comprehensive suit and first in
point of time? Under those circumstances, we think that instead of transferring
the Bombay suit to the Madras High Court the
further proceedings in Bombay suit should stand stayed till the
suit before the Original Side of the Madras High Court is disposed of. This
order will not have any effect on the disposal of the contempt proceedings
pending before the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court which would be
dealt with in accordance with law.
learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court is requested to dispose of the
suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 6 months from the date of
the receipt of the copy of the order. It is an admitted position that two
prints of the film have already been despatched to Singapore for distribution. It is apprehended
by the respondents M/s. S.S. Enterprises that further prints are likely to be despatched
to the other foreign jurisdictions.
the learned counsel appearing for the impleading party, to be impleaded, states
that his right would be affected if any status quo order is granted. It would
be in fitness of things that the status quo pending disposal of the above SLPs
is confined to the rights the petitioner had pursuant to the contract dated
October 7, 1993; it would be open to the clients of Shri Naik, if he had any
right to seek impleadment in the pending SLPs against injunction order passed
by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench of the Madras
High Court, the subject matter of SLP (C) No.27695-96/95. We need not go into
the controversy between the parties said to be had by the clients of Shri Naik vis-a-vis
of M/s. S.S. Enterprises. It would be open to them to make an application
seeking impleadment as party in pending SLP (C) Nos. 27695-96/95.
interim order passed in this case stands modified by this order.
Transfer Petition is disposed of accordingly.