Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
M/S. AVTAR SINGH & CO. PVT. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/S. S.S. ENTERPRISES & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (3) 385 1996 SCALE (2)869
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
In 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.
The 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 alongwith the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.
The 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.
Shri Naik, 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.
The interim order passed in this case stands modified by
this order.
The Transfer Petition is disposed of accordingly.