Bangalore District Court
Ravi Prakash vs Rockline Venkatesh on 1 April, 2025
KABC010264612014
IN THE COURT OF XXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-36)
DATED ON THIS THE 1st DAY OF APRIL 2025
Present: Sri.J.V.Kulkarni, B.Sc., L.L.B.,
XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No.9620/2014
Plaintiff : Dr.Ravi Prakash,
Aged about 55 years,
Son of Mr.L.Shivalingaiah,
Residing at 'Kala Farm',
Rajarajeshwari Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 098.
(By Sri/Smt.S.G., Advocate)
-Vs-
Defendants : 1. Mr.Rockline Venkatesh,
Aged Major,
Son of not known,
Rockline Entertainments,
No.96, Dr.Rajkumar Road,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.
E-mail:[email protected]
2. Rockline Entertainments,
A Proprietorship concern,
No.967, Dr.Rajkumar Road,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr.Rockline Venkatesh.
3. Mr.K.S.Ravi Kumar,
Aged major,
Son of not known,
2
O.S.No.9620/2014
C/o: Rockline Entertainments,
No.96, Dr.Rajkumar Road,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.
E-mail:[email protected]
4. Mr.Karthik,
Aged major,
Son of not known,
C/o.Rockline Entertainments,
No.96, Dr.Rajkumar Road,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.
5. Mr.Sabu Cyril,
Aged major,
Son of not known,
C/o: Rockline Entertainments,
No.96, Dr.Rajkumar Road,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.
E-mail:[email protected]
(Sri/Smt.M.S.S., Advocate for defendant
Nos.1 & 2)
******
Date of institution of the suit : 10-12-2014
Nature of the suit : Injunction
Date of commencement of : 24-10-2016
recording of the evidence
Date on which the judgment : 01-04-2025
was pronounced
Total duration : Years/s Month/s Day/s
10 02 25
(J.V.KULKARNI)
XXXV Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
3
O.S.No.9620/2014
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of money of ₹ 14,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit. He has also sought mandatory injunction to delete the scenes of vintage items in the film 'Lingaa'.
2. In the suit, the plaintiff has stated that the defendant under the banner Rockline Entertainments i.e, the second defendant is the producer of the upcoming multi- lingual movie, starring Super Star, Mr.Rajinikanth named as Lingaa which is slated for release on the 12th December 2014, which is widely published through out the Country.
The plaintiff stated that the 3rd defendant is the Director, 4th defendant is one of the Assistant Directors and the 5 th defendant is the Art Director of the movie Lingaa.
The plaintiff stated the defendants being aware of the fact that the plaintiff owns various vintage items such as Cars, Jeeps Carriage, Carts, Bikes, Piano etc., approached the plaintiff thereby 4 O.S.No.9620/2014 requesting him to hire the above vintage items for consideration thereby seeking his permission for using the same in movie Lingaa.
The plaintiff stated that he has purchased the vintage items preserved and maintained by expending all his income and saving, through out his life, for the purpose of establishing a museum. Some of the items are used in the film Lingaa, which are mentioned in para No.6 of the plaint.
The plaintiff stated that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in order to ensure that the plaintiff does not deny the request apart from having agreed to make the payments for hire of the cars also assured the plaintiff that his name will be find a prominent place in the screening of the movie Lingaa. They have also assured the plaintiff that in acknowledgment Section his name will be displayed.
According to the plaintiff, there was understanding reached between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 sent the mail on 24-04-2014 furnished the list of dates, and vintage items required for the shooting of the film. The plaintiff replied to the mail on 24-04-2014 furnishing the price list for each vintage items that were sought for. All the vintage items should be 5 O.S.No.9620/2014 transported on flat bed trucks as such the transportation charges will be charged based on the actual.
The Staff of the plaintiff also accompany the vintage items and train the respective actors who use the same, their accommodation, food and payments were also be made by the defendants. E-mail was received by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that in the reply mail dated 24-04-2014, clearly specified the fact that payment of the entire amount for hiring the vintage items and its transportation charges has to be made in advance along with the refundable deposit just in case any damages are caused to the vintage items during the shooting.
The defendant Nos.1 to 5 were taking various vintage items, for a considerable period of time since the movie starred a legend of India Cinema Mr. Rajanikanth. The plaintiff also agreed to negotiate with the prices.
The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant expressed his inconvenience to make payment of the entire amount for hiring the vintage items and its transportation charges, in advance along with the refundable deposit, the first defendant agreed to make payments in installments on considering the request made by first defendant, 6 O.S.No.9620/2014 the plaintiff obliged the same being induced by first defendant to trust and believe him that the payments would be made.
The plaintiff claimed that as per the finalized price list, the charges of the vintage items were agreed to between the parties as mentioned in para No.13 of the plaint.
The plaintiff claimed that the bills for hire of vintage items that were used by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 for the movie Lingaa along with the transportation charges from 2-5-2014 to 17-5-2014 would amounts to ₹ 8,45,000/- and ₹ 2,50,000/- respectively.
He stated that the bill for he vintage items that were used by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 for the movie Lingaa along with the transportation charges from 18th to 22-05-2014 would amount to ₹ 11,88,000/- and ₹ 3,40,000/- respectively.
The plaintiff claimed that since the first defendant agreed to pay a sum of ₹.10,00,000/- by way of cheque, it attracts service tax @ 12.36% which comes to ₹.1,23,600/-. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant was liable to pay a sum of ₹ 27,46,600/-. A mail was sent on 22-05-2014 in this regard.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 admitting the above transaction and liability paid an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- 7
O.S.No.9620/2014 by cash, ₹ 4,50,000/- by cheque after deducting a sum of ₹.50,000/- for TDS another amount of ₹ 4,50,000/- by cheque after deducting a sum of ₹.50,000/- for TDS, totally amounting to a sum of ₹.14,00,000/-.
The first defendant was required to provide the TDS Certificate to the plaintiff for having deposited a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- as TDS, which was still remained unfurnished, even though as per requisite law, the same was required to be furnished long ago.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 are due to the plaintiff an amount of ₹ 12,46,600/- and also to furnish the TDS certificate for having deposited a sum of ₹.1,00,000/-. However, if the first defendant fails to provide the TDS certificate the first defendant would also be liable to make payment of the said amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- purportedly withheld an account of deduction of tax, totally amounting to a sum of ₹.13,46,600/-.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants having hired such valuable vintage items for making the movie Lingaa, or without making payment in hurry to release the film. Therefore, the plaintiff left with no option forced to issue legal notice on 3-12-2014. In the notice, the plaintiff has clearly demanded the payment of amount 8 O.S.No.9620/2014 and TDS certificate and also to display his name in the acknowledgment Section of movie Lingaa. The legal notice was dispatched by mail, dated 4-12-2014. It was also sent by post and courier. The notices were duly served on the defendants. The defendants did not reply to the legal notice.
Again, the plaintiff sent remainder notice on 8-12-2014, calling upon the defendants to pay the money and display his name in the acknowledgment Section. Since the defendants did not comply the legal notice and remainder notice, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of ₹ 13,46,600/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and mandatory injunction not to display the scenes of vintage items described in the suit schedule properties provided by the plaintiff in movie Lingaa. Hence, he prays to decree the suit as prayed.
3. After filing the suit, the suit summons issued to the defendants. The notice to the defendants duly served. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement.
9
O.S.No.9620/2014 The defendants denied the plaint averments in toto. In para No. 29 of the written statement, the defendants stated that they used the vintage items such as cars and other items from the plaintiff.
The defendants claimed that the plaintiff admitted that he has received the rents towards renting of items towards tune of ₹.14,00,000/-. The defendants contended that they have invested crores of rupees from various sources on huge rate of interest and ventured to make huge scale movie by casting the super stars. The plaintiff in collusion with rival elements wanting to collapse the multi Crore budget movie of the first and second defendants.
The defendants claimed that the plaintiff never allowed the defendants to use the vintage items on rental basis, it is provided only on the assurance that his name will be displayed in the acknowledgment Section of the movie Lingaa, it was done by the defendants. Therefore, they stated that they are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants sought to dismiss the suit.
4. Based on the pleadings, My predecessor in office has framed the following:-
10
O.S.No.9620/2014 1 Whether plaintiffs proves the defendant -
jointly or severally make payment of a sum of ₹ 13,46,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of receipt?
2. Whether the defendant proves suit is hit by order 11 R 2 CPC?
3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?
4. To what order or decree?
5. The plaintiff examined as P.W.1. Exs.P.1 to P.59 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff closed his side. The Manager of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 examined as D.W.1, Exs.D.1 to D.22 were marked on behalf of the defendants, they closed their side.
6. I heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants remained absent , their argument taken as 'heard'.
7. My findings to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Negative
Issue No.3 : Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the following:-
11
O.S.No.9620/2014
REASONS
8. Issue No.1:- Before adverting to the dispute facts, let me know the admitted facts. It is admitted that the plaintiff supplied vintage items to the defendants for shooting of film 'Lingaa'. It is also not in dispute that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant regarding the supply of vintage items. It is also not in dispute that there is an amount due from the defendants to the plaintiff, the quantum is at dispute.
9. According to the defendants, they have already paid whatever the amount due to the plaintiff and there is no liability on them to pay the further amount. Whereas, the plaintiff claims an amount of ₹ 13,46,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a., In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced paper publications, photographs which are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.29. Exs.P,1 to P.6 are the paper cuttings of the advertisement of release of Lingaa film in various placed around the Karnataka. Exs.P.7 to P.29 are the photographs of vintage cars and bikes owned and possessed by the plaintiff including the vintage bikes. Ex.P.30 is the e-mail sent by the plaintiff to the defendants regarding the selection 12 O.S.No.9620/2014 of cars required for shooting of Lingaa movie. Ex.P.31 is the reply given by the plaintiff to the defendants - Company regarding he care to be taken for transportation of he vintage items supplied by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has also asked the payments to be made to the care takers of the vintage items. Ex.P.32 is the e-mail sent by the plaintiff to the first defendant regarding the breakups of items supplied to the movie and the charges of the vintage items including the service tax. It shows that for shooting of film Lingaa the car, bikes, buggies are used from 22nd May of 2014. The plaintiff has sent bill of ₹.12,46,600/-. Ex.P.33 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to all the defendants in detail mentioning the vintage items supplied by him including the cars, bikes, bullock carts, piano etc. The plaintiff demanded ₹ 13,46,600/- the due amount from the defendants. This notice served upon the defendants in Ex.P.34, the details dates used by the dates on which vintage items are used by the defendants are also mentioned. The second notice was issued on 8-12-2014 asking the defendants to pay the amount dues to the plaintiff. The legal notices are duly served upon him
10. The defense of the defendants is that they have paid the amount as per agreed rate. At the time of release of the film of 13 O.S.No.9620/2014 Lingaa, there was an understanding between the plaintiff and defendants at the intervention of film chamber. By that time, the plaintiff agreed that he will waive off the amount due to him if the defendants displayed his name in acknowledgment Section. He also admitted the fact that initially he obstructed for release of movie unless his dues are paid. He admitted that on 19-12-2014, his counsel has filed memo stating that it is sufficient for him to display the name of plaintiff in the acknowledgment Section. The said memo is confronted to the witness, he admitted the memo, therefore, it is marked as Ex.D.1. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that based on the memo on 16-04-2014, the suit was dismissed. But, subsequently, the suit was restored by the order of this Court on 5-6- 2015. Order dated 16-4-2014 was recalled.
11. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, the learned counsel for the defendants suggested the P.W.1 that 26 vehicles are used in Lingaa film which is supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff admitted he fact that all the vintage items are ornamental pieces. The cars, bikes are not supposed to be driven in mechanical process. This suggestion clearly goes to shows that the items 14 O.S.No.9620/2014 supplied by the plaintiff are used in multi film the Lingaa. Substantial income was derived by the defendants from the film but the case of the plaintiff is that they have to pay ₹.12,46,000/-. Initially, they have deducted ₹.1,00,000/- towards the TDS. But the TDS certificate is not furnished. It was admitted during the cross-examination of the D.W.1 who claims to be the Manager of the defendant No.2.
12. The defendant No.2 produced Exs.D.3 to D.6 to show that the payments are made towards the amount due to the plaintiff. But, the amount mentioned in Exs.D.1 to D.6 are disputed by the plaintiff. During the cross-examination of D.W.1, it is suggested to him that only an amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- paid to the plaintiff as per Ex.D.4 including the TDS. In subsequent cross-examination, the D.W.1 admitted that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and defendants regarding the supply of vintage items, free of cost. This question asked because during the cross-examination of P.W.1, the learned counsel for the defendants asked the P.W.1 that these vintage items are supplied free of cost. They have also suggested to P.W.1 that the P.W.1 agreed to waive of the amount if his name is 15 O.S.No.9620/2014 displayed in the acknowledgment Section of the film. But, the P.W.1 categorically denied it.
13. D.W.1 also admitted that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and defendants regarding the supply of vintage items free of cost. The defendants have not produced any documents to support the contention that as per Exs.D.3 to D.6, the payments are made to the plaintiff. The supply of vintage items is admitted. Utilisation of the vintage items in the film shooting of Lingaa is also admitted. There is no supporting Bank statement to show that the payments are made as per Exs.D.3 to D.6. The plaintiff admitted the fact that including ₹ 1,00,000/- TDS, the defendants have paid ₹ 15,00,000/- but they are still liable to pay him ₹ 13,46,600/- together with 18% p.a. The breakups of the amount due is also mentioned in Ex.P.33. Number of days, the items are used for film Lingaa is also mentioned in Ex.P.33. Exs.D.2 to D.8 are the self serving vouchers prepared by the defendants and there is no supporting Bank statements produced by the defendants. Exs.D.9 to D.17 are the photographs and video of the clippings of film Lingaa, wherein, the use of vintage cars, buggies are clearly 16 O.S.No.9620/2014 visible. It further strengthens the case of the plaintiff, therefore, I answer issue No.1 in affirmative.
14. Issue No.2:- The defendant took contention that the suit is hit by Order 11 Rule 2 of CPC. It is a discovery to be made by the one party by issuing notice to other parties, but in this case, everything has been stated by the plaintiff along with supplementary documents. During the cross-examination of D.W.1, he admitted regarding the use of 26 items supplied by the plaintiff. The price break ups are mentioned in Ex.P.33. Therefore, I answer issue No.2 in negative.
15. Issue No.3:- The plaintiff claimed an amount of ₹.13,46,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. In the said amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- was also mentioned which is in respect of TDS alleged to have been deducted by the defendants at the time of marking initial demand. The TDS certificate is not furnished to the plaintiff, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay ₹ 13,46,000/- to the plaintiff. Since it is commercial transaction, it carries interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of suit to till its realization. Accordingly, I answer issue No.3 in affirmative.
17
O.S.No.9620/2014
16. Issue No.4:- In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 to 3, I pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff decreed with costs. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay ₹ 13,46,000/-(Thirteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand) together with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of suit to till its realization, within three months.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed and typed by her and then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1 st day of April 2025) (J.V.KULKARNI) XXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
P.W.1 : Sri.Dr.V.Prakash Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant.
D.W.1 : Sri.N.Prakash
18
O.S.No.9620/2014
Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff.
Exs.P.1 : Paper publications (6)
to P.6
Exs.P.7 : Photographs (23)
to P.29
Ex.P.30 : Copy of the E-mail, dated 24-04-2014
Ex.P.31 : Copy of the reply
Ex.32 : Copy of E-mail
Ex.P.33 : Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.34 : Copy of the legal notice,
dated 03-12-2014
Exs.P.35 : Postal receipts (5)
to P.39
Exs.P.40 : Courier receipts (5)
to P.44
Ex.P.45 : Pint out of the website of India Post
and the courier
Ex.P.46 : Copy of the reminder notice,
dated 8-12-2014 sent through E-mail
Exs.P.47 : Postal receipts (5)
to P.51
Exs.P.42 : Courier receipts (5)
to P.56
19
O.S.No.9620/2014
Exs.P.57 : CDs (3)
to P.59
Documents marked on behalf of the defendants.
Ex.D.1 : Authority Letter issued by the
Company
Ex.D.2 : Voucher for payment of cash to
the plaintiff
Exs.D.3 : e-mail downloading documents
to D.16 along with photographs
Ex.D.17 : CD
Ex.D.18 : Affidavit Certificate along with 65
B of Evidence Act
Exs.D.19 : E-mail conversations
to D.21
Ex.D.22 : Affidavit under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act
(J.V.KULKARNI)
XXXV Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Digitally signed
by JEEVAN
JEEVAN KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
2025.04.07
17:06:45 +0530