Bangalore District Court
Aggregating To Rs.15 vs To Manage The Production Of Films In ... on 30 November, 2020
1
Com.O.S.No.2504/2008
IN THE COURT OF LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE,AT BENGALURU (CCH.83)
THIS THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2020
PRESENT:
SRI.DEVARAJA BHAT.M.,B.COM,LL.B.,
LXXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.2504/2008
BETWEEN:
1. A.K.K. Entertainment
Limited, Having its
Registered Office at
No.109, Midford House,
Midford Garden, Off.
Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Bengaluru-560 001,
represented by its
Director Mr. Ashok Kheny
2. Ashok Kheny
Productions Private
Limited, Having its
registered office at
No.109, Midford House,
Midford Gardens,
Off:Mahatama Gandhi
Road, Bengaluru-560 001,
represented by its
Director Mr. Ashok Kheny.
3. A.K.K. Productions,
Having its Office at No.1,
Midford House, Midford
Gardens, Off:Mahatma
Gandhi Road, Bengaluru-
2
Com.O.S.No.2504/2008
560 001, represented by
its Proprietor Director Mr.
Ashok Kheny.
: PLAINTIFFS.
(Represented by M/s Crest
Law Partners - Advocates)
AND
1. M/s Lankesh Chitralaya,
having its office at No.810,
Ring Road, 7th Block, 2nd
Phase, Banashankari III
Stage, Bengaluru-560 085,
represented by its
Proprietor Mr.Indrajit
Lankesh.
2. Prasad Film
Laboratories, No.77,
Industrial Suburb, 2nd
Stage, Tumkur Road,
Bengaluru - 560 022,
represented by its
Proprietor.
3. Mr. M.S.Prakash, Major,
Father's name not known,
residing at Door No.810,
7th Block, 2nd Phase,
Banashankari III Stage,
Bengaluru-560 085.
4. Central Board of Film
Certification, Bharat
Bhavan, 91-E, Walkeshwar
road, Mumbai-400 006,
represented by its
Chairperson.
3
Com.O.S.No.2504/2008
: DEFENDANTS
(Defendant Nos.1 & 3
represented by Sri.
A.S.Ponnanna-advocate,
Defendant No.2 represented
by Sri. Ravi, Smt.Sunita &
Sri. Suri-Advocates &
Defendant No.4 is placed
exparte )
Date of Institution of the 02.04.2008
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on Suit for rendition of accounts and
pronote, suit for declaration for Permanent Injunction.
& Possession, Suit for
injunction etc.)
Date of commencement of 01.09.2015
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment 30.11.2020
was pronounced
Duration Years Months Days
12 07 28
(DEVARAJA BHAT.M),
LXXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a Suit filed for rendition of accounts against First Defendant in respect of the payments received from the Plaintiffs aggregating to Rs.15,38,00,232/- and as to how and to what extent of the said amount is factually and legally utilized 4 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 by him for production of the films and for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants No.1 & 2 from transferring the titles of the said films in favour of any body else other than the Plaintiffs and restraining the fourth Defendant from issuing a Certificate for exhibition of the said films.
2. The Brief facts as narrated in the Plaint are as follows:-
On 01.02.2007, an Agreement was entered into between the third Plaintiff and first Defendant entrusting the work of producing films in Hindi, "Shaadi Ke After Effects", cost of its production being Rs.3,90,00,000/- and stating that the first Defendant should carry on distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the said film and to attend to the work of production, Lab work, to apply for certification by the Censor Board and to attend to other works connected with the said production of the film on behalf of the Plaintiff No.3. It was further agreed between them that a big budget film, named as 'Black Diamond/The Chase' to be produced at a cost of Rs.7,00,00,000/- and the production of the same should also be attended by the first Defendant in terms of the said Agreement. Pursuant to the said Agreement, a Power of Attorney was executed on the same day by Plaintiff No.3 appointing the first Defendant to manage the production of films in Hindi and to do all the acts, deeds and things connected with the said activity. On the same day, the Plaintiff No.2 was incorporated with 5 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 similar objects as that of Plaintiff No.1. On the next day, a Resolution was passed by the Directors of the Plaintiff No.2 ratifying and approving the Agreement dated 01.02.2007 executed between Plaintiff No.3 and Defendant No.1 as deemed to have been entered between Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.1. On 28.02.2007, a Resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff No.2 assigning rights of production, distribution and other assignments of the Plaintiff No.2 to the Plaintiff No.1. On the next day, a Resolution was passed by the Plaintiff No.1 accepting the above said assignment of rights. In pursuance of an oral understanding and agreement before the formal Agreement dated 01.02.2007 came into existence regarding entrustment of production of films in Hindi etc., to the first Defendant a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid by Group Company viz., Nandi Engineering Limited, by way of an Account Payee Cheque dated 28.11.2006 drawn on Allahabad Bank, K.G.Road Branch, Bengaluru, towards expenditure to be incurred for production of films in Hindi entrusted to the first Defendant and the said Cheque was encashed and the amount was received by the first Defendant. Subsequently, the first Defendant was entrusted with the dubbing of Kannada film 'Aishwarya' into Hindi and remaking of "Shaadi Ke After Effects"
into Kannada language under the name "Yella OK Maduve yaake" under the same terms contained in the Agreement 6 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 dated 01.02.2007 and the same was accepted by the first Defendant. The Plaintiffs purchased the dubbing rights from third Defendant in respect of Kannada film "Aishwarya" on 07.02.2008. The first Defendant was the Director of the said original film in Kannada and dubbing rights had been purchased by the Plaintiffs with the involvement of first Defendant. In pursuance of the formal agreement, an amount of Rs.9,33,41,160/- was paid by the first Plaintiff to the first Defendant in intermittent installments by means of Account Payee Cheques issued by the first Plaintiff to the first Defendant and by cash payment of Rs.75 Lakhs during the period from 05.03.2007 to 12.11.2007. All the above said Cheques have been encashed by the first Defendant and the amounts are received by him towards production of films entrusted to him. While so, the first Defendant was not submitting accounts of expenditure incurred as per the terms of the Agreement dated 01.02.2007 inspite of several demands and as a result, the Plaintiffs suspected the conduct of the first Defendant about non-utilization of the amount paid to it for the production/dubbing/remaking etc., of the above said films. With the consent and acceptance of the first Defendant, the first Plaintiff started making the payments directly to the parties who were involved in the said process under the instructions of the first Defendant. By the time when the earlier mode of 7 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 payment was changed, the production of "Shaadi Ke After Effects" had been almost complete and there has been some progress regarding production of film "Black Diamond/The Chase". Apart from the above said payment, a total amount of Rs.5,79,59,072/- was paid by the first Plaintiff by way of Account Payee Cheques, Demand Drafts and by means of foreign exchange to various parties who were connected with the said process as identified by and at the instance of the first Defendant. An aggregate sum of Rs.15,38,00,232/- is paid by the first Plaintiff towards production of said two Hindi films and also towards dubbing of the above mentioned Kannada film and remaking of Hindi film into Kannada. The first Defendant has not rendered accounts for the entire amount of Rs.15,38,00,232/- and whenever demanded by the Plaintiffs, he has been postponing rendition of the accounts from time to time on some pretext or the other. The first Defendant has not delivered to the Plaintiff the negatives of the film and has stopped activities regarding further production of film "Black Diamond/The Chase" inspite of several demands and requests. Dubbing work relating to the film "Aishwarya" is entrusted to the second Defendant at the instance of first Defendant. The first Defendant has illegally entered into an agreement with the second Defendant regard post-production activities of "Shaadi Ke After Effects". The first Defendant has got titles of all the 8 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 above said films registered with Indian Motion Pictures Association and Kannada Film Chamber in its name illegally without permission of the Plaintiffs and is trying to alienate the rights in favour of others. When the Plaintiff No.1 wrote letters dated 26.02.2008 to the 2nd Defendant to deliver the original negative and soundtrack, the 2nd Defendant has sent a reply dated 01.03.2008 stating that it is following as per the instructions of the first Defendant. Thereupon the Plaintiff No.1 called upon the first Defendant to direct the 2 nd Defendant to handover original negatives. The first Defendant has not taken any action on the said letter. The 2 nd Defendant is not entitled to keep in its possession the original negatives of the said films. The first Defendant is trying to get certification of the said films from the 4th Defendant with dishonest intention of causing wrongful loss to the Plaintiffs. Hence, the Plaintiff No.3 has revoked and canceled the Power of Attorney dated 01.02.2007 by execution of a Deed of Cancellation of Power of Attorney dated 25.02.2008. The copies of the said Deed of Cancellation were sent to Defendants No.1, 2 & 4 under the registered post. The first Defendant has also issued Legal Notice dated 18.02.2008 to the Plaintiff No.3 alleging dishonour of the Cheques dated 24.09.2007 and 08.10.2007 and another Legal Notice dated 18.02.2008 was issued to the Plaintiff No.3 demanding payment of Rs.1,95,46,800/-. The Plaintiff No.3 9 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 issued a Reply dated 04.03.2008 mentioning true facts. Hence, the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the above mentioned reliefs.
3. The Defendants No.1 & 3 filed their written statement and their contentions in brief are as follows:-
Under the Agreement dated 01.02.2007 the First Defendant was to launch the production of Hindi film. The sum mentioned in the annexure attached to the agreement for launching the production and was a tentative amount fixed between the parties to launch or begin the operations for the production of the Hindi film. No where in the agreement the Defendant was entrusted with the responsibility of carrying out the distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the film or to apply for the certification to the Censor Board, attend the lab work etc. These conditions and responsibilities are not part of the agreement and the Plaintiff is only attempting to improve upon the agreement to suit his needs and help the case. The agreement and tentative amount fixed under the agreement was to only launch the production and the acts mentioned above as averred by the Plaintiff are all acts to be carried out subsequent to the completion of a film and that question does not arise at all in the case on hand. Though the schedule of the payment is mentioned in annexure-2 attached to the 10 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 agreement but at no point of time did the Plaintiff act as per the schedule and every payment made by the Plaintiff towards the production of the film was delayed and at times the payment cheques have also been dishonored. The agreement dated 01.02.2007 was a Service contract and the Defendant was entrusted with the work of launching the production on a contract basis and under the circumstances the question of submitting detailed accounts of the expenditure and copies of the bills would not arise at all. Even otherwise at no point of time did the Plaintiff seek the statement of accounts from the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff did verify the accounts and the bills on various dates and also acknowledged the receipt of the statement of expenditure till December 2007. It is false to state that the big budget film was named 'Black Diamond/The Chase'. Pursuant to the agreement the Plaintiff and Defendant also stated the production of other two films, one was a Hindi film tentatively titled 'Black Diamond/The Chase' and another was the Kannada film 'Yella OK Maduve yake'. In so far as the Hindi film is concern the responsibility of the Defendant was that of an executive producer and after the initial shooting took place, the Plaintiffs decided to make the payments directly and literally took over the entire production activities from the First Defendant and the First Defendant became merely a bystander.
That once the Plaintiff took over all payment were made by 11 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 them and accordingly the major portions of the payments regarding this film were made directly to whomsoever the Plaintiff thought fit by the Plaintiff and its authorised persons. The First Defendant had no say whatsoever in the matter. It is false to state that the dubbing of the movie 'Aishwarya' was entrusted to the First Defendant subsequently as though it was subsequent to the agreement. The dubbing of this movie is very much part of the agreement. It has come to the knowledge of the Defendant that the Plaintiffs have purchased the dubbing rights of the film 'Aishwarya' from the third Defendant and that the First Defendant was the Director of the original Kannada film 'Aishwarya'. It is false to state that the dubbing rights have been purchased by the Plaintiffs with the involvement of the First Defendant. The Defendant has in all received Rs.9,62,16,191/- by various cheques. For the sum of money received the Defendant has made and completed two films namely Hindi film 'Shaadi Ke After Effects' and Hindi dubbed film 'Aishwarya'. The Kannada film 'Yella OK Maduve Yaake' and another Hindi film 'Black Diamond/The Chase' has been launched and partially completed by this Defendant. The question of submitting accounts does not arise at all as the Plaintiffs were fully part of the production activities and fully aware of the expenditure incurred on a day to day basis. Moreover, the nature of the contract between the Plaintiffs and 12 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 the Defendants did not require for a regular statement of expenditure to be made available. The Plaintiff at no point of time made any demand as claimed by him for submitting of the accounts. Any money spent directly by the Plaintiffs is at their peril and the Defendant cannot be expected to account for such money spent. The cancellation of General Power of Attorney has taken place only after receipt of the notice of the Defendant terminating the agreement dated 01.02.2007. The Plaintiffs are only creating a story to harass the Defendant pullout money from him to make wrongful gain. The suit is filed with intention of escaping the liability towards the Defendant and is devoid of any merit and hence, they pray to dismiss the suit.
4. The First Defendant has filed his additional Written Statement contending that the agreement is admittedly between M/s A.K.K. Productions, a Proprietary concern represented by its Proprietor Sri Ashok Kheny. The said Proprietary concern is admittedly no more in operation and is now dissolved. In view of this, the agreement having lost its legal status and accordingly the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Based on the above contentions of both parties, the then Presiding Officer of XXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Court, has framed the following Issues on 09.11.2009.
13Com.O.S.No.2504/2008
1. Whether the Plaintiff Company proves that Defendant No.1 is expected to render account in respect of the payments received from the Plaintiff aggregating Rs. 15,38,00,232/- legally utilised by him for production of film i.e., Production No.1 "Shaadi Ke After Effects" (Hindi), "Black Diamond/Chase" (Hindi) and also towards remaking of the Hindi Film "Shaadi Ke After Effects" into Kannada "Yella O.K. Maduve Yaake" and dubbing of the Kannada Film "Aishwarya" in Hindi ?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the excess amount paid to the Defendant No.1 as contended? (Issue No.2 is re-casted as per Order dated 18.12.2019)
3. Whether the Plaintiff Company further proves that illegally Defendant No.1 has retained the original negatives of the aforesaid films and also materials related to those films as alleged in the Plaint ?
4. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that Defendant No.1 is trying to handover the original negatives of the aforesaid films to the third party as alleged in the Plaint ?
5. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that Defendant No.1 is under obligation to transfer the title of the aforesaid films in the name of Plaintiff as claimed ?
6. Whether the Plaintiff further proves the alleged attempt of transfer of title of the above said films to the third party by the Defendant No.1 as alleged in the Plaint ?
14Com.O.S.No.2504/2008
7. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that the Defendant No.2 is illegally retaining the original negatives, soundtrack and related materials of the film "Aishwarya" dubbed from Kannada into Hindi and hence, they are entitled for the same ?
8. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that the Defendant No.4 at the instance of Defendant No.1 is attempting to issue Certificate for exhibition of the films they are "Shaadi Ke After Effects", "Black Diamond/Chase" and "Aishwarya" in favour of Defendant No.1 as alleged in the Plaint?
9. Whether the Plaintiff further proves the attempt of release of aforesaid films in the form of Videos, C.Ds, DVDs or any other digital/telemedia satellite, internet or Television etc.?
10. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the series of reliefs so claimed in the Plaint?
11. To what Order or Decree?
Additional Issue framed on 18.01.2014:-
Whether Defendant No.1 proves that this suit is not maintainable in law?
6. In order to prove the contentions of the Plaintiffs, the Director of Plaintiff No.1 Sri.A.Rudragoud is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.37.15
Com.O.S.No.2504/2008
7. In order to prove the contentions of the Defendants, the Sole Proprietor of the 1st Defendant Sri. Indrajit Lankesh is examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.4.
8. The Advocate for the 1st Defendant filed his Written Arguments on 13.01.2020. The Advocate for the Plaintiffs submitted his Written Arguments on 14.02.2020. The Advocate for Plaintiffs has filed a Memo on 17.02.2020 stating that the Defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit has handed over original negatives, soundtracks and other materials related to movie "Aishwarya" to the Plaintiff and therefore, as on date, Issue Nos.3 to 9 do not arise for consideration and do not warrant consideration by this Court. Thereafter, the Advocate for the 1 st Defendant filed additional written arguments on 25.02.2020.
9. In view of the Memo of the Plaintiff dated 17.02.2020, by exercising my power under Order XV-A Rule 6(j) of Amended Civil Procedure Code read with Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Issue Nos.3 to 9 are excluded from consideration.
10. My findings are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Kept pending for enquiry in the
Final Decree Proceedings.
Issue No.3 to 9 : As per Memo dated 17.02.2020 16 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 by the Advocate for the Plaintiff, these Issues do not survive for consideration.
Issue No.10 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Addl. Issue framed
on 18.01.2014 : In the Negative.
Issue No.11 : As per my final Order for the
following reasons.
REASONS
11. Issue No. 1 : - The Plaintiff No.3 and the 1st Defendant entered into Ex.P.2/ Agreement on 01.02.2007 for production of two movies. This fact is admitted by the 1 st Defendant/D.W.1 at Para 2 of his Affidavit filed in-lieu of his oral Examination-in- Chief. Hence, the existence, execution, validity, genuineness and binding nature of Ex. P. 2 is admitted by the 2 nd Defendant. As per the terms of the Ex.P.2 a Power of Attorney has to be executed in favour of the 1st Defendant to enable him to carry on the distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the said movies and to attend to the work of production, lab work, apply for censor and to attend all other works connected with the production of said movies. Ex. P. 3 is the said Power of Attorney executed on the same day, i.e. on 01.02.2007, by the 3 rd Plaintiff in favour of the 1st Defendant. Therefore, Ex. P. 2 and 3 have to be read together. They are part and parcel of the same 17 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 transaction. This fact is admitted by the 1 st Defendant/D.W.1 at Para 5 of his Affidavit filed in-lieu of his oral Examination-in- Chief. Hence, the existence, execution, validity, genuineness and binding nature of Ex. P. 3 is admitted by the 2 nd Defendant. As per the terms of Ex.P.2, the terms of payment are at Annexure -2 to the said Agreement. This fact is admitted by the 1st Defendant/D.W.1 at Para 2 of his Affidavit filed in-lieu of his oral Examination-in-Chief. He has deposed as follows :-
" It is true that the schedule of the payment is mentioned in Annexure -2 attached to the Agreement but no point of time did the Plaintiff act as per the schedule and every payment made by the Plaintiff towards the production of the film was delayed and at times the payment cheques have also been dishonored."
12. According to the Plaintiff the payments were made to the 1st Defendant as per Ex.P.8 and some payments were made to other parties at and instruction of the 1 st Defendant as per Ex.P.9. Though the 1st Defendant has contended that he has not instructed the Plaintiff to make payment to some other parties directly, during the cross-examination of the P.W.1, it is clearly admitted about the said payments. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of P.W.1 is as follows:-
"It is true that Ex.P.8 and 9 reflects the entire payment made for productions of the 4 films. Ex.P.8 and 9 does not reflect payments made after January 2008. It 18 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 is true that the accounts as per Ex.P.8 and 9 have been verified as per Ex.D.1."
13. In view of the said cross-examination, the 1 st Defendant has admitted the payments as per Ex.P.8 and 9. The sum and substance of the said cross-examination is that the 1 st defendant has already rendered the accounts as per Ex.D.1. All other contentions about the said aspect of the 1 st Defendant need not be considered in view of the said admission during the course of the cross-examination of P.W.1. Whether the 1 st Defendant has rendered the accounts as per Ex.D.1 will be discussed later.
14. As per the terms of the Ex.P.2/Agreement the 1 st Defendant has to submit detailed accounts of expenditure incurred on the production of movies along with copies of bills and cheques to the 3rd Plaintiff at the end of every month. Since he has not provided the said accounts the Ex.P.3/Power of Attorney was canceled by the 3rd Plaintiff on 27.02.2008 as per EX.P.14.
15. The 1st Defendant/D.W.1 has contended that he has received Rs. 9,62,16,191/- from the Plaintiffs by various cheques at Para 10, 13 and 14 of his Affidavit filed in-lieu of his oral Examination-in-Chief and has further deposed that though 19 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 he was not obliged to give any accounts, has rendered the accounts as per the letter dated 12.01.2008 marked as Ex. D.1.
16. Now, I discuss about the Ex.D.1. It is to be noted that this suit was filed on 02.04.2008. On 18.02.2008, the 1 st Defendant has issued two Legal Notices, as per Ex.P.23/Ex.D.3 and Ex.P.24/Ex.D.4, to the Plaintiffs stating that the cheques issued by the Plaintiffs for Rs. 97,73,400/-each, were dishonoured and called upon the Plaintiff to pay the same. On the same day he sent another Legal Notice as per Ex.P.25, to the Plaintiffs and called upon the Plaintiffs to pay Rs.1,95,46,800/- in respect of expenditure incurred on the production of the said movies. It is to be noted that Ex.P. 23 to 25 were issued after the Ex.D.1. In Ex.P. 23 to 25, there is no whisper about Ex.D.1. Further, in Ex.D.1, there is no whisper about the outstanding amount payable to the 1st Defendant by the Plaintiffs. It is to be noted that the Plaintiffs replied to the said legal notice as per Ex.P.26, on 04.03.2008 denying their liability to pay the said amounts to the 1st Defendant and called upon the 1st Defendant to render proper accounts with bills and vouchers within seven days of the receipt of the said reply notice. At that time also, the 1 st Defendant has not replied to the Plaintiffs stating that he has already rendered his accounts as per Ex.D.1.
20Com.O.S.No.2504/2008
17. It is to be noted that the Ex.D.1 was issued by the Plaintiffs stating "without prejudice for detailed audit of transactions and subsequent actions," the same was issued as per the request of the 1st Defendant. From the wordings in Ex.D.1, it is very clear that by reserving their rights to demand for accounts, the said letter was issued tentatively as per the request of the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant by taking undue advantage of the said letter cannot contend that he had already rendered detailed accounts to the Plaintiffs.
18. During the course of the arguments, the Learned Advocate for the 1st Defendant has drawn my attention to the portion of the cross-examination of the P.W.1, and has argued that after filing of this suit, the Plaintiffs lodged a complaint before the Police for misappropriation against the 1 st Defendant and during the course of investigation the Police seized the disputed accounts form the 1st Defendant and made available to the Plaintiff and hence the 1 st defendant has no obligation to render the accounts. The relevant portion of the cross- examination of the P.W.1 is as follows:-
"It is true that after filing of this suit, I have filed complaint against Defendant No.1 alleging fraud and misappropriation. It is true that the FIR registered against the Defendant No.1 has been quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and same is confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is true that during 21 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 the time of investigation police have seized all the required documents from the Defendant No.1. It is true that the documents which were seized by the Police are pertaining to the accounts regarding the payments made by me to Defendant No.1. Witness volunteers that police have seized only bank statements but not accounts. It is true that during the course of investigation police have seized all receipts, accounts and other materials relating to the transaction took place between me and Defendant No.1. Witness volunteers that the transactions are personal in nature. It is true that the materials seized by the Police are made available for me."
19. As could be seen from the said evidence, the said FIR was quashed at the instance of the 1 st Defendant during the pendency of this suit. The 1st defendant is aware that though the said FIR was quashed, this suit is still pending. When such being the case, there was no impediment to him to take back the said accounts, receipts and other materials alleged to have been seized by the Police and produce the same before this Court. Further, he has not made any attempts to call for the said documents from the concerned police station through the process of this Court. When best evidence is available for the Defendant No.1, it is his duty to produce the same before the court. For the reasons best known to him, he has not produced the said documents. When the 1 st Defendant/D.W.1 entered the witness box, he was aware of the said fact as deposed by the 22 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 P.W.1. If really he has produced the said accounts before the Police, naturally he should have stated/deposed in his evidence. Though the P.W.1 has deposed as above, the 1 st Defendant/D.W.1 has not stated or deposed in his evidence that he has produced the same before the Police and the same is still in the custody of the Police. Hence the said contention cannot be believed. Therefore, by applying the principle of preponderance of probability the said contention/argument of the Learned Advocate for the 1st Defendant cannot be accepted at all.
20. The Plaintiff has produced the Ex.P.33/ the Statement of the alleged details of the misappropriation of the amounts made by the 1st Defendant and Ex.P.34/ the Statement of withdrawals made by the 1st Defendant. Absolutely, there is no cross-examination on the said documents. The 1 st Defendant/D.W.1 has also not denied about the said documents in his evidence. In the said circumstances, the 1 st defendant is liable to render the accounts to the Plaintiffs.
21. However, the learned Advocate for the 1 st Defendant has vehemently argued that the right to seek rendition of accounts is recognized only in certain kinds of suits like administration suits, suits for dissolution of firms, suits by beneficiary against 23 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 trustee etc, and in the present suit there is no such relationship between the parties and hence the suit is not maintainable. He has also argued that the suit for accounts is maintainable only if there is demand for accounts and refusal and in the present case there is no such demand and refusal.
22. As discussed by me earlier, there was a demand by the Plaintiffs as per Ex.P.26/Reply Notice and since the Defendant No.1 has not complied with the said demand, the Plaintiffs filed the present suit. Hence the said arguments of the learned Advocate for the 1st Defendant cannot be accepted. So far as other arguments, now I discuss about the legal aspects.
23. In this suit, as per the terms of Ex.P.2/Agreement, there is contractual obligation to render accounts by the 1 st Defendant to the Plaintiffs. Further, being an agent as per Ex.P.3/ Power of Attorney, the Defendant No.1 has a statutory obligation to render accounts to the Plaintiffs.
24. Rule 16 of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for a suit for rendition of accounts. It reads as under: -
"In a suit for account of pecuniary transactions between a principal and and agent, and in any other suit not hereinbefore provided for, where it is necessary, in order to ascertain the amount of money due to or from 24 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 any party, that an account should be taken, the Court shall, before passing its final decree, pass a preliminary decree directing such accounts to be taken as it thinks fit."
25. Rule 16 of Order XX does not create or confer any substantive right to seek rendition of accounts in any particular type of cases, nor in all types of cases. It merely refers to a rule of procedure and would apply where there is an existing right to seek rendition of accounts having regard to the relationship between the parties. It is well settled that the right to claim rendition of accounts in an unusual form of relief granted only in certain specific cases and to be claimed when the relationship between the parties is such that the rendition of accounts is the only relief which will enable the Plaintiff to satisfactorily assert his legal right. A suit for rendition of accounts can be maintained only if the person suing has a right to receive an account from the defendant. Such a right can either be created or recognized under a statute; or based on the fiduciary relationship between the parties as in the case of a beneficiary and a trustee, or claimed in equity when the relationship is such that rendition of accounts is the only relief which will enable the person seeking account to satisfactorily assert his legal right. Such person seeking account has to satisfactorily assert his legal right. Such a right to seek accounts cannot be claimed as 25 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 a matter of convenience or on the ground of hardship or on the ground that the person suing did not know the exact amount due to him.
26. In the decision reported in A.I.R. - 1933 - Lahore - 483 (Ram Lal Kapur and sons vs. Asian Commercial), it is held as follows: -
"The right to claim a statement of accounts is an unusual form of relief, only granted in certain specific cases and is only to be claimed when the relationship between the parties is such that this is the only relief which will enable the claimant to satisfactorily assert his legal rights. The agent has to perform this duty even if his earnings for the principal flow out of void or illegal transactions. If an agent receives money on his principal's behalf under an illegal and void contract, the agent must account to the principal for the money so received and cannot set up the illegality of contracts as a justification for withholding payment, which illegality the other contracting party has waived by the paying the amount."
27. In another decision reported in A.I.R. - 1950 - East Punjab - 92 (Ram Dev Jai Dev. vs. Seth Kavu), it is held as follows:-
"A suit for account is not necessarily confined between a principal and agent. Wherever it is necessary, in order to ascertain the amount of money due to the plaintiff, he may ask the court to pass a preliminary 26 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 decree for accounts to be taken by or under the supervision of the Court".
28. In another decision reported in A.I.R. - 1960 - Punjab - 415 (Anant Ram Munshi Ram vs. Spedding Dinga Singh & Co. and Ors), it is held as follows:-
"The test in all such cases is whether, having regard to the terms of the agreement between the parties and the nature of the work done by the plaintiff, it was possible for him to bring a suit for a definite amount or for an amount which was ascertainable or on the other hand, a total sum could only be determined after the accounts in the possession of the defendant had been examined".
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the scope of Rule 16 of Order XX of the Civil Procedure Code in the decision reported in A.I.R. - 1967 - S.C. - 333 ( Narandas Morardas Gajiwala vs. SPAM Papammal) and it is held as follows :-
"The Principal's right to sue an agent for rendition of accounts is recognised by the Contract Act, in as much as Section 213 thereto specifically provides that an agent is bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand. There is no such provision in the Act which enables an agent to sue his principal for accounts. The statute is not exhaustive and the right of the agent to sue the principal for accounts is an equitable right arising under special circumstances and is not a statutory right. In English law an agent has a right to have an account taken and where the accounts 27 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 are of a simple nature they can be taken in an ordinary action in a Queen's Bench Division. The legal position in India is not different. Though an agent has no statutory right for an account from his principal, nevertheless there may be special circumstances rendering it equitable that the Principal should account to the agent. Such a case may arise where all the accounts are in the possession of the Principal and the agent does not possess accounts to enable him to determine his claims for commission against his principal. The right of the agent may also arise in an exceptional circumstance where his remuneration depends on the extent of dealings which are not known to him or where he cannot be aware of the extent of the amount due to him unless the accounts of his principal are gone into."
30. Similarly in the decision reported in A.I.R. - 1968 -S.C. 111(Hulas Rai Baij Nath vs. Firm K. B. Bass and Co.,), it is again held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the principal alone has normally the right to claim rendition of accounts from the agent.
31. In another decision reported in A.I.R. - 1971 - Jammu and Kashmir - 71 (State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. L. Tota Ram) , it is held as follows: -
"A suit for rendition of accounts is a special and unusual form of remedy which can be resorted to only in some well recognised circumstances. It is not enough in such a suit that the plaintiff does not know the exact amount that he can claim from the defendant. Nor is it 28 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 any reason as to what amount is due to one or the other that a suit for accounts will lie".
32. However, the availability of such a restricted remedy to be also available in cases, which may not strictly come within the parameters of the specified categories but where rendition of accounts can be the only relief, which can satisfactorily enable the Court to adjudicate the legal rights of the parties.
33. The duties of Agent also include the duty to remit sums to the principal. All the accounts rendered by the agent should be true and the agent under no circumstances is allowed to alter the books of accounts. The principal trusts the agent with all the business transaction and as they share a fiduciary bond the principal would expect full honesty from the agent while he prepares the books of account.
34. The Principal being the employer of an agent has right to demand from his agent to render the accounts under Section 213 of the Indian Contract Act. An agent who receives any property for his principal or from his principal is bound to keep such property separate from his own and he is to be treated as a trustee of such property. For the reason above stated, an agent has a duty to keep proper accounts of the property 29 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 received by him in the course of the agency and to render such account to the principal on request. Even after the agency relationship has ceased, the agent's duty to account to the principal may continue. Hence, the agent is obliged to return to his principal all documents and property originally given to the agent by the principal and documents prepared by the agent on the instruction and at the expense of the principal. This duty also includes the duty to remit sums to the principal. All the accounts rendered by the agent should be true and the agent under no circumstances is allowed to alter the books of accounts. The principal trusts the agent with all the business transaction and as they share a fiduciary bond the principal would expect full honesty from the agent while he prepares the books of account. Agents must keep accurate records and accounts of all transactions and disclose these to the principal once the principal makes a reasonable demand for them. Also, an agent who obtains or holds property for the principal usually may not mix that property with his own property.
35. Accounts is an important part of any business, among other duties of the agent one of the most important duty is to maintain accounts from the principal. As a part of the duty the agent is liable to show vouchers in support of expenditure incurred by him. Reference may be made to the decision 30 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 reported in A.I.R. - 1984 - Cal - 378 (S. Paul and Co vs. State of Tripura).
36. In another decision reported in 1985 - Kerala Law Journal - 930 (The Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd., Madras), it is held as follows :-
"The finding that the suit as framed is maintainable is perfectly justified, viewed from another angle too. At one time it was thought that a suit on accounts could be entertained only when certain specified jural relationships existed. The view is no longer tenable. During the passage of time, the old notion had to yield to consideration in which equity was assigned a dominant role. The development of law in this regard is perceptible by a close reading of the early English decisions and reference to the views expressed by eminent jurists."
37. In the decision reported in A.I.R. - 2006 - S.C. - 811 = (2006) 2 - S.C.C. - 258 (K.C. Skaria vs. Govt. of State of Kerala & Another), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a case where the contractor filed a suit for recovery of a specific sum and also prayed for proper accounting with a request for permission to pay any additional Court fee if the amount due to him for the work were found to be in excess of the amount for 31 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 which the Court fee was paid. Though the trial Court found the amount due to be much more, it granted a decree only for the amount for which the Court fee was paid and in appeal, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the suit in entirety holding that a suit by an independent contractor for rendition of accounts by the employer was not maintainable. Tire Hon'ble Supreme Court, while noting that the right to claim rendition of accounts is an unusual form of relief granted only in certain specific cases and to be claimed when the relationship between the parties is such that the rendition of accounts is the only relief which will enable the plaintiff to satisfactorily assert his legal right, has also noted that even where there is no specific provision for rendition of accounts, Courts have recognized an equitable right to claim rendition of accounts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized among other things that a suit for rendition of accounts can be maintained only if a person suing has a right to receive an account from the defendant, which can be claimed in equity when the relationship is such that rendition of accounts is the only relief which will enable the person seeking account to satisfactorily assert his legal right. Though such a right cannot be claimed as a matter of convenience or on the ground of hardship or on the ground that the person suing did not know the exact amount due to him, the Hon'ble Apex Court in effect and substance recognized the maintainability of such a suit 32 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 where there may be special circumstances rendering it equitable that the principal should account to the agent. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"15. It is now well settled that the right to claim rendition of accounts is an unusual form of relief granted only in certain specific cases and to be claimed when the relationship between the parties is such that the rendition of accounts is the only relief which will enable the plaintiff to satisfactorily assert his legal right. [vide Jowahar Singh v. Haria Mal (1899) 60 P.R. 1899, followed in Gulam Qutab-ud-din Khan v. Mian Faiz Bakhsh AIR 1925 Lah 100, State of Jammu & Kashmir v. L. Tota Ram AIR 1971 J&K 71, Triloki Nath Dhar v. Dharmarath Council AIR 1975 JK 76]. The right to seek rendition of accounts is recognized in law in administration suits for accounts of any property and for its administration, suits by a partner of a firm for dissolution of the partnership firm and accounts, suits by beneficiary against trustee (s), suits by a member of a joint family against the karta for partition and accounts, suits by a co- sharer against other co-sharer
(s) who has/have received the profits of a common property, suits by principal against an agent, and suits by a minor against a person who has received the funds of the minor.
xxxxxxxx
17. To summarise, a suit for rendition of accounts can be maintained only if a person suing has a right to receive an account from the defendant. Such a right can either be (a) created or recognized under a statute; or
(b) based on the fiduciary relationship between the 33 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 parties as in the case of a beneficiary and a trustee; or
(c) claimed in equity when the relationship is such that rendition of accounts is the only relief which will enable the person seeking account to satisfactorily assert his legal right. Such a right to seek accounts cannot be claimed as a matter of convenience or on the ground of hardship or on the ground that the person suing did not know the exact amount due to him, as that will open the floodgates for converting several types of money claims into suits for accounts, to avoid payment of court fee at the time of institution.
18. Let us now examine whether a contractor engaged to execute a particular work can file a suit for accounts against the employer in regard to payment for the work done. Such a right is not created or recognized by any statute. The independent contractor is not an agent of the employer. Nor is the employer in the position of a trustee with reference to the independent contractor. Can the claim be supported in equity by stating that where the relationship is such that rendition of accounts is the only relief which will enable the contractor to satisfactorily assert his legal right? A contractor who is engaged to execute a work, is expected to maintain his own accounts. At all events, there is no bar for a contractor to keep an account of the work done. Even where the contract between the employer and the independent contractor may provide for payment on the basis of measurements to be recorded by the employer, nothing prevents the contractor from measuring the work done by him and then suing for the value of the work done. The contractor may also demand joint-measurements to determine the quantum of work done. If the employer for some reason does not co-operate or prevents the contractor from taking physical measurements, the 34 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 contractor can seek appropriate legal remedy which will enable him to take measurements or to secure the information from the measurement book in the custody of the employer. Therefore, either the fact that the measurement book is maintained by the employer, or the fact that the contractor does not possess the exact measurements, will not entitle the contractor to file a suit for rendition of accounts against the employer."
38. On a combined reading of the ratio of the above- mentioned decisions and by applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, the 1st Defendant being an Agent as per Ex. P. 3/Power of Attorney and as per the terms of the Ex. P. 2/Agreement is liable to render the accounts to the Plaintiffs. Hence, the said arguments of the Learned Advocate for the 1 st Defendant cannot be accepted. Therefore, I answer this Issue in Affirmative.
39. Issue No.2:- Since under Order XX Rule 16 of the Civil procedure Code, only a Preliminary Decree is to be passed directing the 1st Defendant, to render accounts, this Issue cannot be decided at this juncture. It is kept pending for consideration at the time of Final Decree Proceedings. Hence, this Issue is answered accordingly.
40. Issue No. 10:- In view of the above-mentioned Memo 35 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 dated 17.02.2020, the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed at Para No. 45 (a) only at present. The relief claimed at Para 45
(b) is kept pending for consideration at the time of Final Decree Proceedings. Hence, this Issue is answered partly in affirmative.
41. Addl. Issue framed on 18.01.2014 : - During pendency of the suit, the Plaintiffs got amended the cause title of the Plaint, and the name of the 1st Plaintiff is changed form " A.K.K. Entertainment Private Limited" to "A.K.K. Entertainment Limited". In fact, under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, if any amendment to the cause title of the plaint, consequential amendment has to be made in the body of the Plaint also. But in this suit, the Plaintiffs have not made any such amendment in the body of the Plaint. However, it is only a technical defect which is not affected to the right of the Plaintiffs. After the said amendment, the 1 st defendant has filed additional written statement wherein he has contended that the Ex.P.2/Agreement was entered into between the 1 st Defendant and the 3rd Plaintiff and the 3rd Plaintiff is at present not in existence and hence the suit is not maintainable. The Plaintiff has produced Ex.P.1 and 2/ Memorandum and Articles of Association, and Ex.P.5 to 7/Resolutions, wherein it is very clear 36 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 that the work of production of the said Films was taken over by the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 from the Plaintiff No.3. The Plaintiff No.3 is also a party to this suit. When such being the case, all the Plaintiffs have joint interest in the production of the said movies. Further the said companies are inter-linked with each other and under the same management. When such being the case, the doctrine of group companies is applicable to the facts of the present case.
42. Through the group of companies' doctrine an agreement entered into by a company, being one within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister or parent concerns, if the circumstances demonstrate that the mutual intention of all the parties was to bind both the signatories and the non-signatory affiliates.
43. In India, the group of companies' doctrine was first invoked by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2013) 1 - S.C.C. - 641 ( Chloro Controls India Private Ltd. vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc) with respect to an international commercial agreement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in (2018) 15 - S.C.C.
- 678 (Ameet Lalchand Shah and Others vs. Rishabh Enterprises and Another), had the opportunity to interpret 37 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015. It ruled that in cases where the agreements are inter- connected and several parties are involved in a single commercial project executed through several agreements, all the parties can be made amenable to arbitration.
44. In the said case, the respondent Rishabh Enterprises had entered into four agreements i.e. (i) Equipment and material supply Contract, and (ii) Engineering, Installation and Commissioning Contract (1-2-2012) with Juwi India; (iii) Sale and Purchase Agreement (5-3-2012) with Astonfield; and (iv) Equipment Lease Agreement (14-3-2012) with Dante Energy. Dispute arose between the parties when the respondent alleged that Appellant No.3 Dante Energy had defaulted in payment of rent and that Astonfield committed fraud by inducing Rishabh Enterprises to purchase the Photovoltaic products by investing huge amount. The Respondents preferred a civil suit against all the appellants leveling various allegations including fraud and misrepresentation and in the said suit, appellant-defendants preferred an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration pertaining to all the four agreements. An arbitration clause existed only in the agreements (i), (ii) with Juwi India and (iv) mentioned above 38 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 with Dante Energy, but the agreement (iii) between Rishabh Enterprises and Astonfield Renewables did not contain the arbitration clause. The question posed expressly was whether all the four agreements were interconnected to refer the parties to arbitration though there was no arbitration clause in the Sale and Purchase agreement between Rishabh Enterprises and Astonfield ? i.e., whether the arbitration agreement between Rishabh Enterprises and Dante Energy could be extended to the agreement between Rishabh Enterprises and Astonfield Renewables even though the separate Sale Purchase agreement signed by Aston Renewables with the former did not contain any arbitration clause.
45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all the four agreements were for the single purpose of commission 2 MWp Photovoltaic Solar Plant at Dongri, to be purchased by Rishabh Enterprises and for leasing the equipments to Dante Energy; further, averments in the plaint also prima facie indicated that all the four agreements were inter-connected; also, clauses in the Equipment and Material Supply Contract, Engineering, Installation and Commissioning Contract indicated that the agreement was entered into for the purpose of commissioning Photovoltiac Solar Plant; equally, the Sale and Purchase Agreement (5-3-2012) between M/s Astonfield and Rishabh 39 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 Enterprises was also for onward leasing of goods to Dante Energy; that the Equipment Lease Agreement for commissioning of the Solar Plant was the principal/main agreement and two agreements of Rishabh Enterprises with Juwi India and Rishabh Enterprises's Sale and Purchase Agreement with Astonfield were ancillary agreements; and all parties can be covered by the arbitration clause in the main agreement i.e. Equipment Lease Agreement. Thus, parties can be referred to arbitration and the single Judge as well as Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi erred in dismissing the application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act in the civil suit by the appellants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on the decision reported in (2013) 1 - S.C.C. - 641 (Chloro Controls India Private Ltd. vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc) and applied the principle that if the transaction is of a composite nature where performance of the mother-agreement may not be feasible without aid, execution and performance of the supplementary or ancilliary agreements, for achieving the common object and collectively having bearing on the dispute, and if the Court is of the opinion that a composite reference of such parties would serve the ends of justice, even non-signatory parties can be subjected to arbitration without their prior consent. This case applies arbitration agreement to agreement in a Group of 40 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 Agreements and goes beyond the 'parent-subsidiary' relationship.
46. I may point out that in the above case, though Astonfield was not in any Group of Companies and though it was a non- signatory to the agreement between Rishabh Enterprises and Dante Energy, all the agreements were held to be interconnected and therefore it was held that it is a fit case to refer all of them including Astonfield to arbitration. Therefore, this case shows that for the application of the doctrine of Group of Companies, it is not necessary that it should be only among a parent Company and Subsidiaries, but the said principle can be applied even if one of the parties is not in the Group as such but is outside the Group but is involved and connected in the execution of the same project.
47. Recently in the decision reported in 2019 - S.C.C. - OnLine S.C. - 995 (Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs. Canara Bank and others), the doctrine of "Group of Companies" was invoked and applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of domestic arbitration under Part I of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated in this decision that a non-signatory can be bound by an arbitration agreement on the 41 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 basis of the 'Group of Companies' doctrine, where the conduct of the parties evidences a clear intention of the parties to bind both the signatory as well as the non-signatory parties. It held that courts and tribunals have invoked this doctrine to join a non-signatory member of the group, if they are satisfied that the non-signatory company was by reference to the common intention of the parties, a necessary party to the contract. It explained that the said doctrine was invoked where an arbitration agreement is entered into by one of the companies in the group, and the non-signatory affiliate, or sister, or parent concern, is held to be bound by the arbitration agreement if the facts and circumstances of the case demonstrate that it was the mutual intention of all parties to bind both the signatories and the non-signatory affiliates in the group.
48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that the 'Group of Companies' Doctrine could also be invoked to bind the non- signatory affiliate of a parent company, or include a third party to an arbitration if there is a direct relationship with the party which is a signatory to the arbitration agreement, direct commonality of the subject matter, and the composite nature of the transaction between the parties. Mahanagar refers to 'Composite transaction', 'single economic unit' or 'single economic reality'. It explained a 'composite transaction' to be one which is inter- linked in nature, or, where the performance 42 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 of the agreement may not be feasible without the aid, execution, and performance of the supplementary or the ancillary agreement, for achieving the common object, and collectively having a bearing on the dispute.
49. It held that the 'Group of Companies' doctrine has also been invoked in cases where there is a tight group structure with strong organizational and financial links, so as to constitute a single economic unit, or a single economic reality. In such a situation, signatory and non-signatories have been bound together under the arbitration agreement. This will apply in particular when the funds of one company are used to financially support or re-structure other members of the group. Though the said decisions are related to the arbitration agreement, the said principle is also applicable to the facts of the present case and hence I answer that this suit is maintainable. Therefore, I answer this Issue in the Negative.
50. Issue No.11 : - Therefore, I proceed to pass the following Order.
O R D E R. The Suit of the Plaintiffs is partly decreed.
The Defendants No. 1 is hereby directed to 43 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 render accounts in respect of the payments received from the Plaintiffs aggregating to Rs.15,38,00,232/- and as to how and to what extent out of the said amount, is factually and legally utilized by the Defendant No.1 for production of the films - Production No.1 viz., "Shaadi Ke After Effects" (Hindi), "Black Diamond/Chase" (Hindi) and towards remaking of the Hindi Film "Shaadi Ke After Effects" into Kannada "Yella O.K. Maduve Yaake" and dubbing of the Kannada Film "Aishwarya" in Hindi, within two months from the date of this Judgment.
The Prayer No.(b) in respect of recovery of the amounts detailed in the said prayer is kept pending for enquiry during Final Decree Proceedings.
The Suit of the Plaintiff in respect of Prayer No.(c) to (i) against the First Defendant and other Defendants is dismissed in view of the Memo dated 17.02.2020.
The Defendant No.1 is directed to pay the cost of the suit to the Plaintiffs. The Advocate for the Plaintiffs is directed to file Memorandum of Cost before the Office within 5 days from today as required under Rule 99 and 100 of Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice.
Draw Preliminary Decree accordingly.
The Office is directed to send copy of this Judgment to Plaintiffs and Defendants to their 44 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 email ID as required under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended under Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her directly on the computer, verified and pronounced in the open court on 30th day of November 2020).
(DEVARAJA BHAT.M.), LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 Sri. A. Rudragoud
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFFS
Ex.P.1 Memorandum of Articles of Association
Ex.P.2 Copy of Agreement dated 01.02.2007
Ex.P.3 Copy of power of attorney
Ex.P.4 Original Memorandum & Articles of
Association of Plaintiff No.2
Ex.P.5 to 7 Extracts of Resolutions dated 02.02.2007, 28.02.2007 & 01.03.2007 Ex.P.8 Statement of payment made to defendant Ex.P.9 Statement of payments made to other parties at and instruction of Defendant.
45Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 Ex.P.10 Letter dated 26.02.2008 sent by Plaintiff to Defendant No.2 Ex.P.11 Letter dated 01.03.2008 sent by Plaintiff No.1 to the Proprietor of Defendant No.1 Ex.P.12 Reply Letter dated 27.02.2008 sent by Defendant No.2 to the Plaintiff No.1 Ex.P.13 Reply Letter dated 01.03.2008 sent by Defendant No.2 to the Plaintiff No.1 Ex.P.14 Original deed of cancellation of power of attorney dated 25.02.2008 Ex.P.15 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P.16 Letter dated 26.2.2008 Ex.P.17 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P.18 Letter dated 27.2.2008 Ex.P.19 Postal receipt Ex.P.20 & Letters dated 27.2.2008 21 Ex.P.22 Letter dated 29.2.2008 Ex.P.23 to Three Legal notices 25 Ex.P.26 Reply notice dated 04.03.2008 Ex.P.27 & Two Statements of payments made to 28 defendant Ex.P.29 to Three Bank statements 31 Ex.P.32 Certified copy of bank statement of defendant with Vijaya Bank with covering letter Ex.P.33 Statement of misappropriation made by defendant Ex.P.34 Statement of withdrawals made by Defendant Ex.P.35 Copy of Board Resolution dated 31.03.2008 Ex.P.36 Special power of attorney dated 13.02.2008 Ex.P.37 General Power of Attorney dated 01.04.2014 46 Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 Sri. Indrajit Lankesh
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANTS
Ex.D.1 Preliminary Verification of Expenditure
incurred on the film projects assigned
dated 12.01.2008.
Ex.D.2 Original Letter dated 12.01.2008
Ex.D.3 Office copy of legal notice dated
18.02.2008
Ex.D.4 Office copy of legal notice dated
08.04.2008
(DEVARAJA BHAT.M.),
LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
47Com.O.S.No.2504/2008 30.11.2020 P:
D:
The Judgment is pronounced in Open Court today. The operative portion of the said judgment is as follows:-
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiffs is partly decreed.
The Defendants No. 1 is
hereby directed to render
accounts in respect of the
payments received from the
Plaintiffs aggregating to
Rs.15,38,00,232/- and as to
how and to what extent out
of the said amount, is
factually and legally utilized
by the Defendant No.1 for
production of the films -
Production No.1 viz., "Shaadi
Ke After Effects" (Hindi),
"Black Diamond/Chase"
(Hindi) and towards remaking
of the Hindi Film "Shaadi Ke
After Effects" into Kannada
"Yella O.K. Maduve Yaake"
and dubbing of the Kannada
Film "Aishwarya" in Hindi,
within two months from the
date of this Judgment.
The Prayer No.(b) in
respect of recovery of the
48
Com.O.S.No.2504/2008
amounts detailed in the said
prayer is kept pending for
enquiry during Final Decree
Proceedings.
The Suit of the Plaintiff
in respect of Prayer No.(c) to
(i) against the First
Defendant and other
Defendants is dismissed in
view of the Memo dated
17.02.2020.
The Defendant No.1 is
directed to pay the cost of
the suit to the Plaintiffs. The
Advocate for the Plaintiffs is
directed to file Memorandum
of Cost before the Office
within 5 days from today as
required under Rule 99 and
100 of Karnataka Civil Rules
of Practice.
Draw Preliminary
Decree accordingly.
The Office is directed to
send copy of this Judgment to
Plaintiffs and Defendants to
their email ID as required
under Order XX Rule 1 of the
Civil Procedure Code as
amended under Section 16 of
the Commercial Courts Act.
49
Com.O.S.No.2504/2008
(Vide my separate detailed
Judgment dated 30.11.2020)
(Typed as per my dictation).
(DEVARAJA BHAT.M.),
LXXXII Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge,Bengaluru.