Madras High Court
Camp At vs M/S.Lyca Productions Private Limited on 7 June, 2022
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment reserved on 16.03.2022
Judgment pronounced on 07.06.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Civil Suit(Comm.Div) No.735 of 2019
M/s.DMY CREATION SDN.BHD.,
No.9, Gombak Heights,
Taman Sri Gombak,
Batu Caves 68100, Selangor,
Malaysia.
Rep. by its Director
Mr.Aloysius Pillai @ Alex
Camp at:
New No.17/1, First Floor,
Sriram Nagar,
South Street, Alwarpet,
Chennai – 600 018. ... Plaintiff
vs.
M/s.LYCA PRODUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,
No.55, Vijayaraghava Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
Rep. by its Director ... Defendant
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 21
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019
The suit is filed under Order VI Rule 1 of High Court O.S. Rules
r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC to direct the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a
sum of Rs.23,70,05,222/- (Rupees Twenty Three Crores Seventy Lakhs and
Five Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Two only) with interest @ 30%
per annum on the above amount from the date of plaint till realization and
for the costs.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Feroz Khan &
Mr.S.Velu
For Defendant : Ms.Hema Srinivasan &
S.Vishaka
JUDGMENT
The suit was filed seeking to recover a sum of Rs.23,70,05,222/- with interest thereon at 30% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization. The Defendant filed a written statement along with a counter claim for a sum of Rs.1,58,66,964/- with interest thereon at 18% per annum from the date of the suit.
2. The Plaintiff entered into an Agreement dated 11.12.2017 (the 2.0 Agreement) with the Defendant for exclusive theatrical rights and non- _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 exclusive TV, satellite, VCD and DVD rights to exhibit and distribute the movie titled ''2.0'' in the Tamil, Telugu and Hindi languages in the territory of Malaysia. The 2.0 Agreement specified that the consideration of Rs.20 crore was payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in relation to the above. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to pay interest on the sum of Rs.20 crore in view of the abnormal delay of more than 12 months in releasing the movie. Although the Plaintiff proposed to charge interest at 36% per annum, after negotiations, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant agreed to pay interest at 30% per annum. It is further stated that the Plaintiff provided additional funding of Rs.12 crore to the Defendant to meet its financial commitments in relation to the movie ''2.0''. Thus, the Plaintiff states that it paid an aggregate sum of Rs.32 crores to the Defendant. The Plaintiff further states that the aggregate sum of Rs.32 crore was paid through bank transactions carried out between 17.12.2017 and 28.11.2018.
3. The Plaintiff asserts that a sum of Rs.6,92,83,334/- became due and payable towards interest until the date of release of the movie 2.0. Upon release of the movie, after reconciliation of accounts, a sum of Rs.18,92,83,334/- was due and payable by the Defendant as on 29.11.2018. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 Meanwhile, a Memorandum of Understanding (the Kaala MoU) was entered into on 28.05.2018 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the exhibition and distribution rights for the movie ''KAALA'' featuring the actor Rajinikant. The Kaala MoU specified that the price would be mutually decided by the parties in due course. The Plaintiff states that the parties reached an understanding in line with trade practice, which entailed the exhibition of the movie ''KAALA'' in Malaysia, the deduction of expenses in relation thereto from the proceeds/collections, the raising of an invoice for 10% of the net collection towards distribution charges, and the payment of the remainder of proceeds/collections to the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserts that the gross collection from the movie ''KAALA'' in Malaysia was a sum of Rs.4,38,36,320/- and, after setting off expenses, the net collection was a sum of Rs,3,00,52,802/-. After deducting 10% distribution charges therefrom, the amount payable to the Defendant would be Rs.2,70,47,521/- but the said amount is liable to be set off against amounts due and payable to the Plaintiff towards the loan taken by the Defendant.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019
4. The Plaintiff further states that the Defendant released another movie titled ''CHEKKA CHIVANTHA VAANAM'' on 27.09.2018. Once again, the sale consideration was not fixed by the Defendant but was required to be computed as per the formula described above with regard to the movie ''KAALA''. The Plaintiff states that the gross collection from the movie ''CHEKKA CHIVANTHA VAANAM'' was Rs.2,69,82,150/- and that the net collection was a sum of Rs.2,46,45,392/-. After deducting 10% distribution charges of Rs.24,64,539/-, it is stated that a sum of Rs.2,21,80,853/- would be payable as per the formula. However, it is stated that the Defendant agreed to the consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Accordingly, an invoice was raised for Rs.1,50,00,000/- by the Defendant. The Plaintiff states that it distributed the movie ''VADA CHENNAI'' for the Defendant. As per the formula, the total consideration is a sum of Rs.60,64,744/-. According to the Plaintiff, it was agreed that this sum would be deducted from the interest payable by the Defendant. Thereafter, the Plaintiff exhibited the movie titled ''MAARI – 2'' on 21.12.2018 in the territory of Malaysia. As per the formula, the price arrived at was a sum of Rs.2,15,49,913/-, which the Defendant agreed to reduce to Rs.1,50,00,000/-. This amount was settled by the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Plaintiff states that _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 it exhibited the movie ''VANTHA RAJAVATHAAN VARUVEN'' on 01.02.2019 in Malaysia. The consideration for the said movie, as per the formula, is a sum of Rs.69,46,644/-. According to the Plaintiff, this sum was settled out of interest receivable by the Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant suggested that the loan of Rs.12 crore and interest accrued on the aggregate sum of Rs.32 crore, i.e. the sum of Rs.6,92,83,334/-, be merged. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant assured the Plaintiff that the sum of Rs.18,92,83,334/-, which is the aggregate amount upon such merger, would be repaid with interest at 30% per month. After applying interest on the sum of Rs.18,92,83,334/- from 29.11.2018 till 30.03.2019 and adjusting the payment due by the Plaintiff for the movie ''VADA CHENNAI'', the Plaintiff states that a sum of Rs.20,23,04,660/- was payable by the Defendant as of 30.03.2019. After applying interest on the sum of Rs.20,23,04,660/- from 30.03.2019 till 23.05.2019 and adjusting the sum of Rs.69,46,650/- towards the consideration for the movie ''VANTHA RAJAVATHAAN VARUVEN'', it is stated that the sum of Rs.20,44,61,730/- was payable as of 23.05.2019. By _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 applying interest thereon from 23.05.2019 till 30.11.2019, the Plaintiff has computed the suit claim of Rs.23,70,05,222/-.
6. The Defendant filed a written statement, along with a counter claim, in response to the plaint. The Defendant states that the movies ''2.0'' and ''KAALA'' were assignments for lump sum consideration as per trade practice in movies in which Rajinikant is the lead actor. As regards the other movies such as ''CHEKKA CHIVANTHA VAANAM'', ''VADA CHENNAI'', ''MAARI – 2'' and ''VANTHA RAJAVATHAAN VARUVEN'', the consideration was to be arrived at on the basis of amounts collected upon exhibition of the movie. If computed correctly, the Defendant states that a net sum of Rs.1,58,66,694/- is due and payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in respect of the above mentioned movies. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs.20 crore towards consideration for distribution rights for the movie ''2.0''. Since the movie ''KAALA'' was likely to be released prior to the movie ''2.0'', the Plaintiff requested that a sum of Rs.12 crore from and out of amounts already paid for the movie ''2.0'' be used towards the consideration for ''KAALA''. Therefore, the Defendant states that a sum of Rs.12 crore was adjusted _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 towards the movie ''KAALA'' from and out of the sum of Rs.22 crore which the Plaintiff had remitted. Consequently, a sum of Rs.10 crore remained outstanding towards the movie ''2.0''. The Defendant alleges that the present suit was filed because the Defendant decided not to assign rights to the Plaintiff for subsequent movies, namely, ''KAAPPAN'' and ''DARBAR''.
7. The Defendant states that the movie 2.0 was released on 29.11.2018. By adverting to specific clauses of the 2.0 Agreement, the Defendant further states that the Plaintiff agreed that no compensation or damages would be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in case of delay. The Defendant categorically denies the Plaintiff's assertion that a sum of Rs.12 crore was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as a loan. As stated earlier, the Defendant asserts that the sum of Rs.12 crore is the consideration for acquiring distribution rights in the movie ''KAALA''. The Defendant states that this is evident from the Kaala MoU read with the email of 04.06.2018. Since the movie ''KAALA'' was admittedly released on 07.06.2018, the Defendant states that there is no liability on the part of the Defendant as regards the said movie. In effect, the Defendant states that it did not avail of any loan from the Plaintiff. Upon taking into consideration _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 the amounts due and payable by the Defendant for the movies ''2.0'' and ''KAALA'', the Defendant states that it was entitled to receive a total sum of Rs.32 crores for these two movies.
8. Both parties filed affidavits of admission/denial of documents produced by the counter party. Upon examining the same, this Court, by order dated 22.12.2021, directed the parties to appear before the learned Additional Master-IV on 10.01.2022 for marking documents. By the same order, the case was listed for filing written arguments and convenience typed sets on 24.01.2022. Pursuant thereto, 31 documents were exhibited by the Plaintiff as Ex.P1 to P31 and 5 documents were exhibited by the Defendant as Ex.D1 to D5. Thus, neither party adduced oral evidence and, in this process, inadvertently, issues were not framed. Instead, parties filed their written arguments. Upon noticing that issues had not been framed, the parties filed draft issues. Based on the pleadings, documents and draft issues, the following issues arise for consideration and determination:
1. Whether the Plaintiff extended a loan of Rs.12 crore to the Defendant and, if so, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 30% per annum thereon?
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019
2. Whether the sum of Rs.12 crore was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant towards consideration for the assignment of distribution rights for the movie ''KAALA'' in Malaysia?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of Rs.23,70,05,222/- or a part thereof with interest at 30% per annum?
4. Whether the Defendant is entitled to its counter claim?
5. Whether the parties are entitled to any other reliefs?
Issue Nos.1, 2 and 3:
9. Since Issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 are closely inter-connected, the said issues are dealt with jointly. The Plaintiff contends that a sum of Rs.12 crore was paid to the Defendant as a loan. This contention is refuted by the Defendant by stating that this amount was initially paid as consideration for exhibition and distribution rights in Malaysia for the movie “2.0” and later adjusted towards consideration for exhibition and distribution rights for the movie ''KAALA''. In order to adjudicate these issues, the 2.0 Agreement (Ex.P1) and the Kaala MoU (Ex.P7) should be examined. The 2.0 Agreement stipulates that a sum of Rs.20 crore is payable towards _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 assignment of exclusive theatrical and non-exclusive TV, satellite, DVD and VCD rights in Malaysia in respect of the movie 2.0. The Kaala MoU stipulates that the ''price will be mutually decided between the parties in due course''. Thus, the Kaala MoU does not per se establish that the consideration for distribution rights in respect of the movie ''KAALA'' is a sum of Rs.12 crore. In order to prove that this amount represents the consideration for the movie ''KAALA'', the Defendant relies upon a letter dated 04.06.2018. This letter was attached to an email of 16.11.2018 from the Defendant to the Plaintiff (Ex.D1). Significantly, the letter is unsigned.
The letter states that the Defendant received a sum of Rs.20 crore towards the movie ''2.0'' and a further sum of Rs.2 crore from M/s.Utsmaya Global Mandiri, Indonesia, thereby aggregating to a sum of Rs.22,00,00,000/-. Out of the said aggregate sum, the letter states that a sum of Rs.12,00,00,000/- was adjusted towards assignment of rights in the movie ''KAALA'' as per the Kaala MoU. The letter provides for the Plaintiff to agree and confirm the contents thereof by counter signing the letter. However, as stated above, neither party has signed the letter.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019
10. The evidence on record includes an invoice for Rs.10,00,00,000 (Ex.P2) and remittance related documents (Ex.P3-P6), which disclose the aggregate remittance of about Rs.22,00,00,000 between 17.12.2017 and 25.01.2018 in four tranches. All these remittances were subsequent to the 2.0 Agreement, which is dated 11.12.2017, and prior to the KAALA MoU, which is dated 28.05.2018. Thus, the evidence on record supports the inference that remittances were made towards consideration for the movie 2.0 albeit the remittances exceed the stipulated consideration by Rs.2 crore. As regards the Plaintiff's assertion that the sum of Rs.12,00,00,000/- was advanced as a loan, the Plaintiff has not mentioned the date on which the parties agreed on the said loan and there is neither an agreement nor correspondence corroborating the assertion. In paragraph 15 of the plaint, the Plaintiff set out particulars of payments made to the Defendant through banking channels towards pre-production cost of the movie 2.0. The amounts indicated therein aggregate to Rs.31,86,67,172/-. The Plaintiff states that these payments were made between 17.12.2017 and 28.11.2018 in about seven tranches and includes the four tranches referred to earlier. Out of the remaining three tranches, the Plaintiff has not adduced evidence of the payment of Rs.3,00,00,000 on 30.01.2018. Instead, there is _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 evidence of remittance of USD 200,000 under remittance advice dated 02.10.2018 (Ex.P9) corresponding to the invoice dated 01.10.2018 (Ex.P8) for advance payment for the movie “CHEKKA CHIVANTHA VAANAM''. Likewise, albeit without specifying the name of the movie, the remittance application dated 28.11.2018 (Ex.P12) for remittance of USD 281,000 is on record and this corresponds exactly to the advance payment invoice dated 21.11.2018 (Ex.P10). An invoice dated 30.03.2019 (Ex.P13) and the corresponding remittance application ((Ex.P14) in respect of the movie “MAARI 2” are also on record. The only other remittance advice on record is dated 22.11.2018 for a sum of USD 700,000 (Ex.P11), although no corresponding invoice is on record. Apart from the above, invoices in respect of the movies “VANTHA RAJAAVATHAN VARUVEN” (Ex.P15) and “VADACHENNAI” (Ex. P16) are on record but not the remittance applications or advice in relation thereto.
11. In paragraph (xii) of the written statement, the Defendant does not deny the receipt of the sums indicated in paragraph 15 of the plaint. Instead, the Defendant states that these amounts were remitted towards consideration for the movies ''2.0'' and ''KAALA'' with the break up being _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 Rs.20 crore for the movie ''2.0'' and Rs.12 crore for the movie ''KAALA''. The evidence on record does not lead to the conclusion that the Plaintiff extended a loan of Rs.12 crore to the Defendant. Consequently, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest thereon at 30% per annum or at any other rate. Thus, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the sum of Rs.23,70,05,222/- or a part thereof. Equally, the Defendant has failed to establish that the sum of Rs.12 crore represents the agreed consideration for the movie ''KAALA''. Issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 are disposed of in the above manner.
Issue Nos. 4 and 5:
12. According to the Defendant, a sum of Rs.13,33,003/- remains outstanding towards the movie ''2.0''. Similarly, by relying upon the amounts payable in respect of the movies ''VADA CHENNAI'' ''MAARI – 2'' and ''VANTHA RAJAVATHAAN VARUVEN'', as per invoices issued by the Defendant and marked as exhibits herein, the Defendant counter claims a sum of Rs.1,58,66,964/-. The invoice in respect of the movie ''VADA CHENNAI'' is exhibited as Ex.P16. This invoice is for USD 1,08,303.25, which has been converted into Rs.75 lakhs. The invoice for the movie ''MAARI – 2'' is exhibited as Ex.P13. This invoice is for a sum of USD _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 216,606.50, which has been converted into Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. As regards this invoice, the corresponding remittance application is on record. The invoice for the movie ''VANTHA RAJAVATHAAN VARUVEN'' is exhibited as Ex.P15. This invoice is for a sum of USD 99,665/-, which has been converted as Rs. 69,46,650.50. It is pertinent to notice that these documents were exhibited by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of these invoices. Indeed, there is a reference to these invoices in the plaint. With reference to the invoice for the movie ''VADA CHENNAI'', the Plaintiff asserts that the amount payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for the movie ''VADA CHENNAI'' is a sum of Rs.60,64,744/- and that this sum was deducted from the interest payable by the Defendant. Likewise, as regards the movie 'VANTHA RAJAVATHAAN VARUVEN'', the Plaintiff states that the sum of Rs.69,46,644/- was settled out of interest receivable by the Plaintiff. As regards the movie ''MAARI – 2'', the Plaintiff states that the amount payable in respect of this movie was settled by the Plaintiff and Ex.P16 establishes this assertion to the extent of USD 213, 827 out of the invoice value of USD 216,606.50.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.15 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019
13. The Plaintiff failed to establish that only a sum of Rs.60,64,744/- was agreed to be paid in respect of the movie ''VADA CHENNAI''. More importantly, since the Plaintiff failed to prove that interest is payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on the sum of Rs.12 crore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to adjust the amounts due and payable towards the consideration for the movie ''VADA CHENNAI'' against the alleged interest liability. Likewise, in respect of the movie ''VANTHA RAJAVATHAAN VARUVEN'', the Plaintiff is not entitled to make adjustments towards alleged interest liability. Consequently, the Plaintiff becomes liable to make payments towards the invoices issued by the Defendant and received by the Plaintiff. As regards the movie ''2.0'', the Plaintiff stated that an aggregate sum of Rs.31,86,67,172/- was remitted and the Defendant does not deny receipt thereof. Since these remittances were not invoice-specific or movie-specific, on the basis of the evidence on record, it is not possible to conclude that a sum of Rs.13,33,003/- remains due and payable towards the movie ''2.0''. Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to its counter claim as regards the amounts due and payable under invoices issued in respect of the movies ''VADA CHENNAI'' and ''VANTHA RAJAVATHAAN VARUVEN'' but not “2.0”. With regard to the movie _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.16 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 ''MAARI -2'', the evidence on record shows payment of this invoice. Although the amount paid does not tally with the invoice value exactly, the Defendant has failed to prove the counter claim in this respect. Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- as regards the movie ''VADA CHENNAI'' and the sum of Rs.69,46,651/- as regards the movie ''VANTHA RAJAVATHAAN VARUVEN'', thereby aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,44,46,651/-. Since there is no agreement with regard to the rate of interest, the rate of interest should be fixed on the basis of interest rates prevailing at the relevant time. By taking the above into account, interest is awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the counter claim.
14. In the result, the claims made by the Plaintiff are rejected and the counter claim made by the Defendant is partly allowed. Consequently, the Plaintiff is directed to pay the Defendant a sum of Rs.1,44,46,651/- along with interest thereon at 9 % per annum from the date of counter claim till the date of realization. Since the Defendant succeeded to the extent of Rs.1,44,46,651/-, the Defendant is entitled to costs of Rs.1,44,000/- as regards court fees and a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards lawyer's fees _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.17 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 and other expenses, which is rounded off in an aggregate sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
07.06.2022
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
rrg
Plaintiff's witnesses: Nil
Defendant's witnesses: Nil
Documents exhibited by the Plaintiff:
Sl.No Exhibi Date Particulars of Documents
ts
1. Ex.P1 11.12.2017 Agreement for the movie titled ''2.0''
2. Ex.P2 13.12.2017 Advance invoice raised by vendor
3. Ex.P3 17.12.2017 Bank Payment Counterfoil
4. Ex.P4 19.12.2017 Bank Payment Counterfoil
5. Ex.P5 01.01.2018 Bank Payment Counterfoil
6. Ex.P6 25.01.2018 Bank Payment Counterfoil
7. Ex.P7 28.05.2018 MoU for the movie titled ''KAALA''
8. Ex.P8 01.10.2018 Invoice raised by vendor for CCV
9. Ex.P9 02.10.2018 Bank Payment Counter foil
10. Ex.P10 21.11.2018 Advance Invoice raised by vendor
11. Ex.P11 22.11.2018 Bank Payment Counterfoil
12. Ex.P12 28.11.2018 Bank Payment Counterfoil
13. Ex.P13 30.03.2019 Invoice raised by vendor for Maari -2 _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.18 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 Sl.No Exhibi Date Particulars of Documents ts
14. Ex.P14 08.05.2019 Bank Payment Counterfoil Maari -2
15. Ex.P15 23.05.2019 Invoice raised by vendor
16. Ex.P16 30.05.2019 Invoice raised by the vendor
17. Ex.P17 24.09.2018 MOU for the movie titled Chekka Chivandha Vaanam
18. Ex.P18 11.11.2019 Board of Directors Resolution
19. Ex.P19 10.12.2019 Representation to Association(SIFA)
20. Ex.P20 17.12.2019 Letter from Association(SIFA)
21. Ex.P21 16.11.2018 Email from Respondent to applicant enclosing letter and agreement dated 04.06.2018
22. Ex.P22 - Email relating to the issue of Kdm to the Applicant from the Respondent and CUBE
23. Ex.P23 - Movie stills for the release of Kaala by the Applicant in Malaysia
24. Ex.P24 18.06.2019 Email from Defendant to Plaintiff regarding 25.06.2019 outstanding dues from the Plaintiff
25. Ex.P25 26.06.2019 Email from Defendant to Plaintiff showing amount pending from the Plaintiff
26. Ex.P26 30.11.2021 Plaintiff's Affidavit and Certificate U/s.65(B0 of Evidence Act,1872.
27. Ex.P27 26.06.2019 Defendant has filed Mail from Defendant to 01.07.2019 Plaintiff. The same mail from Plaintiff to 01.07.2019 Defendant.
28. Ex.P28 04.07.2019 Mail from Plaintiff to Defendant 04.07.2019 Mail from Defendant to Plaintiff
29. Ex.P29 09.07.2019 Mail from Plaintiff to Defendant 07.07.2019 Mail forward dated 09.07.2019
30. Ex.P30 30.07.2019 Mail from Plaintiff to Defendant 02.08.2019 Mail from Plaintiff to Defendant 02.08.2019 Mail from Defendant to Plaintiff _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.19 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 Sl.No Exhibi Date Particulars of Documents ts
31. Ex.P31 03.08.2019 Mail from Defendant to Plaintiff Documents exhibited by the Defendant:
Sl. Exhibit Date Particulars of Documents
No. s
1. Ex.D1 16.11.2018 Email from Defendant to Plaintiff
2. Ex.D2 26.11.2018 Emails relating to the issue of KDM to the Plaintiff
from the Defendant and CUBE
3. Ex.D3 - Movie stills for the release of the movie Kaala by the
Plaintiff in Malaysia
4. Ex.D4 18.06.2019 Email from Defendant to Plaintiff regarding
outstanding dues from the Plaintiff for the movie Vantha Rajavathaan Varuven
5. Ex.D5 26.06.2019 E-mail from Defendant to Plaintiff showing amount pending from the Plaintiff for the movies.
SKRJ _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.20 of 21 C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.735 of 2019 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
rrg Pre-Delivery Judgment C.S.(Comm. Div.)No.735 of 2019 07.06.2022 _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.21 of 21