Delhi District Court
Nirvikar Films Llp vs Ravindra Pal Singh on 10 March, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-03, SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 42/2023
NIRVIKAR FILMS LLP
...Plaintiff
VERSUS
RAVINDRA PAL SINGH
...Defendant
ORDER
10.03.2025 A question arose in the present case as to how the disputes involved in the present case is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Commercial Courts Act.
1. The arguments addressed at bar by Mr. Keshav Gulati, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. S.S.Ahluwalia, ld. counsel for defendant were heard at length.
2. The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint is that the plaintiff, a LLP has been creating and producing certain contents and engaging audiences through a vast variety of different platforms. The defendant is the sole proprietor of M/s Blue Grass and engaged in supplying line production services in the entertainment and media industry.
3. On 22.04.2022, the plaintiff entered into a production agreement with one Novi Digital Entertainment private limited for the development CS (COMM) 42/2023 PAGE NO.1 OF 7 2 and production of season 1 of a web series titled, "Criminal Mind". In the said production agreement, the plaintiff had the responsibility of engaging personnel, crew technicians who are suitable and competent for the services as may be required for rendering the services related to the production of series.
4. The defendant in or around December, 2021 represented to the plaintiff that he was an experienced professional in the entertainment and media industry and was willing to conduct the line production work for the plaintiff regarding the shooting of the series. In May-2022, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into discussion to engage the defendant for the line production work qua the shooting of the series. Thereafter, various emails were exchanged between the parties and both the parties entered into two separate agreements: A - 'Line Producer Agreement' wherein the defendant was to be paid Rs.15,00,000/- for the service provided therein as per the terms contained therein, and B - 'Supply Agreement' wherein the defendant was to be paid Rs.2,75,00,000/- for the equipment and services provided therein as per the terms contained therein.
5. Subsequently, the dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the performance of various terms and conditions of service agreement and supply agreement and payment thereunder. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant in order to defame the plaintiff and cause tortious interference with the business of plaintiff sent legal notice dated 02.11.2022 to Novi Digital which is not privy to the CS (COMM) 42/2023 PAGE NO.2 OF 7 3 agreements entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. By this notice dated 02.11.2022, the defendant allegedly made false allegation against the plaintiff claiming that it had not paid the amount claimed by him. The defendant has also communicated his baseless allegations to the Indian Motion Pictures Producers' Association (IMPPA) by way of a 'Claim Statement Form' dated 28.11.2022. The plaintiff contended that the sole intention of the defendant in approaching the IMPPA is to defame the plaintiff, tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff and interfere with the business interests and relations of the plaintiff in order to coerce it to give into his baseless demands. The plaintiff further alleged that as a result of the defamatory and tortious actions of the defendant, the plaintiff has received communications from both the Novi Digital and IMPPA showing concern over the baseless allegations of the defendant.
6. Against this factual background, the plaintiff prayed in the suit as under:-
"a. Declare that the Plaintiff does not have outstanding amounts payable to the Defendant for the work done by him regarding the shooting of the Series, including inter alia under the Service Agreement and the Supply Agreement;
b. Pass an order directing the Defendant to deposit/handover all No Objection Certificates, permissions and other clearances obtained by him from the concerned governmental authorities and/or location owner required under the Service Agreement for the purpose of commencing/ continuing the shooting of the Series;
c. Order defendant nos.1 & 2 to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (One crore Fifty Lakhs only) by way of damages along with pendente-lite and future (i.e. post-decree) interest at the rate of 18% p.a. compounded monthly, from the date of filing this suit.CS (COMM) 42/2023 PAGE NO.3 OF 7 4
d. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, restraining him and any of his employees, agents, associates or any other person acting through him or on his instructions, from publishing or disseminating, in any manner either orally or in writing, any malicious, insinuatory or scandalous statements which would defame or tend to defame the Plaintiffs, by way of any medium whatsoever including emails, social media posts, SMSes, mobile media posts, websites, newspapers (print or electronic), to any third party including but not limited to clients, employees, associates or other stakeholders of the Plaintiffs;
e. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, restraining him and any of his employees, agents, associates or any other person acting through him or on his instructions from indulging in acts, including but not limited to sending email communications and making social media posts, which result in tortious interference in the terms of engagement between the Company and its employees, clients and other associates:"
7. Mr. S.S.Ahluwalia, ld. counsel for the defendant argued that the prayer for permanent injunction arising out of the alleged defamation of the plaintiff by the defendant is not a part of commercial dispute. Ld. counsel for the defendant further argued that the defendant has filed a suit for recovery against the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court and prayer Clause B is to be decided by the Hon'ble High Court.
8. Mr. S.S.Ahluwalia, ld. counsel for the defendant referred to various paragraphs of the plaint wherein the plaintiff is alleging defamation on the hand of the defendant to submit that a suit for injunction to restrain the defendant from defaming the plaintiff will not fall within the ambit of Section 2 (c) of the Commercial Courts Act.
CS (COMM) 42/2023 PAGE NO.4 OF 7 59. Ld. counsel for the defendant relied upon "Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs. M/s Shri Avenues Private Limited & Ors. (Telangana High Court) (DB): Law Finder Doc ID # 1946544" and "2020 AIR Madras 254 M/s Integrated Finance Company Limited Vs. Garware Marine Industries Limited."
10. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff relied upon "T.V. Today Network Limited Vs. News Laundry Media Private Limited & Ors." decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 29.07.2022.
11. It can be seen from the bare reading of the plaint that the plaintiff is mainly relying upon 'Service Agreement' and 'Supply Agreement' entered into between the parties and alleged breach thereof by the defendant. Under 'Service Agreement', the defendant was to be paid a service amount for the services provided. Under 'Supply Agreement', the defendant was to be paid service amount for equipment and services provided. According to Section 2 (c) (xviii), the commercial dispute means the dispute arising out of the agreement for sale of goods for production of service. Therefore, the main dispute between the parties falls within the definition of commercial dispute under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act. The fact that the plaintiff is also claiming damages and injunction against the defamation will not take away the commercial nature of the dispute between the parties.
12. In "2020 AIR Madras 254 M/s Integrated Finance Company Limited Vs. Garware Marine Industries Limited" relied upon by the ld. counsel CS (COMM) 42/2023 PAGE NO.5 OF 7 6 for the defendant, it was held that nature of the transaction or dispute determines the fact whether dispute is a commercial dispute or not and not the status of the party to the dispute. It was further held that if the case falls within any of the provisions of Section 2 (c) of the Act, then and then only it can be said to be a commercial dispute.
13. It has already been concluded that the case falls within the provision of Section 2 (c) and hence is a commercial dispute. In " Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs. M/s Shri Avenues Private Limited (Supra), Hon'ble Telangana High Court held and observed that the dispute in the case relates to claim of damages on account of action of Bank of Baroda in approaching the CBI which has allegedly resulted in the business loss to the respondent/ plaintiff. It was held that the dispute does not fall under the definition clause. The present case is distinguishable of facts. The issue was clinched in "T.V. Today Network Limited Vs. News Laundry Media Private Limited & Ors (Supra), wherein, it was held in para 49 as under:-
"49. It is therefore, evident that the suit is not just for relief against defamation, which would certainly not constitute a 'commercial suit', but is one in which the violation of the intellectual property rights, namely, in copyright, has allegedly resulted in defamation/ commercial disparagement also. It is clear that the cause of action is the same, namely, the uploading of the videos on YouTube and articles and other content on the website of the defendants No.1 to 9 as well as on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. To hold that the plaintiff would have to limit its relief before the commercial court only to the extent of violation of intellectual property rights and must be asked to approach the civil court for relief qua defamation, etc., would be against the objective of Order II Rule 2 CPC, particularly to avoid conflicting judgments. The CS (COMM) 42/2023 PAGE NO.6 OF 7 7 purpose of procedure is to facilitate disposal and cannot be intended to complicate matters for a litigant."
14. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the dispute involved in the present case is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (c) and held accordingly.
Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.03.18 Announced in the open court 11:15:04 +0530 on 10.03.2025. ( Sandeep Yadav ) District Judge (Commercial)-03 South, Saket Courts, New Delhi. CS (COMM) 42/2023 PAGE NO.7 OF 7