Delhi District Court
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt Ltd vs Dhananjay Dhadkan on 28 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 134/2021
1. Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Naadan Sharma
Having its office at A-13, Ground Floor,
Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex,
Delhi -110092
2. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Naadan Sharma
(Director) M/s Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office at A-13, Ground Floor,
Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex,
Delhi -110092
3. Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd.
Through its proprietor Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Naadan Sharma
Having its office at A-13, Ground Floor,
Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex,
Delhi -110092
4. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Naadan Sharma
Prop. of M/s Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office at A-13, Ground Floor,
Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex,
Delhi -110092 ...... Plaintiffs
Vs.
Digitally signed
by DEVENDRA
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 KUMAR
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 1/46
Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:54:09
+0530
1. Dhananjay Dhadkan
S/o Shree Shiv Kumar Sahani
R/o Village & Post Office
Khadtari Tola Lal Bhaiya Khatri
Tola Lal Bhaiya Khatri East Champaran,
Chirain Bihar - 845415
2. M/s Digital Media
Through Proprietor / Managing Director / Partner
Patna City, Patna, Bihar (BR), India,
Pin Code - 800008
3. M/s Ankita Films
Through Proprietor / Managing Director / Partner
having its office at B-206, Gagan Apartment,
Near LIC Building, Exhibition Road Chauraha,
Patna, Bihar, India - 800001
4. Adishakti Films Pvt. Ltd.
Producer Arvind Mishra
Having its address at Exhibition Road,
Old Jakkanpur, Lodipur,
Patna, Bihar, India - 800001
5. Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd.
Directors of Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd.
Rajan Ramesh Navani, Raj Kumar Singh
and Parimit Parmar
Registered Office at B-405, Sadguru Complex,
Phase II, Chs Ltd. Gen A K Vaidya Marg,
Off Film City Road, Goregaon (East)
Mumbai City MH 400063
6. YouTube, LLC
Through its Managing Director
Having Its Office at 1600.
Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain
View CA 94043 USA ...... Defendants
Digitally signed
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 by DEVENDRA
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. KUMAR 2/46
DEVENDRA
Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:54:21
+0530
Date of Institution : 02.09.2021
Date of Arguments: 06.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.01.2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of this suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from Infringement of Copyright, Declaration and Consequential relief of Permanent Injunction, Unfair Competition Dilution & Rendition of Accounts & Damages for Breach of Contract filed by the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. Plaintiff no. 1 is a Private Limited Company incorporated under Companies Act on 03.07.2012 and performing motion picture, radio, television and other entertainment activities, but its revival is under consideration before Registrar of Companies after striking off its name from roll of Companies and the plaintiff no. 2 is authorized signatory of the plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiff no. 3 is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of music, motion picture, radio, television and other entertainment activities, constituted when the name of the plaintiff no. 1 was struck off from the roll of Registrar of Companies, whereas the plaintiff no. 4 is its proprietor.
2.1. Plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant no. 1 was singer of Bhojpuri and Hindi songs and executed a contract with the plaintiffs vide contract dated 06.02.2018 and the defendant no. 2 M/s Digital Media is content owner to monetize music and video on premiere internet & mobile CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 Digitally signed Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. by DEVENDRA 3/46 DEVENDRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:54:27 +0530 platforms including Google Music, Amazon, iTunes, Ganna, Wynk, JioSaavn, Spotify, Dailymotion, HULU, Netflix, YouTube etc, whereas the defendant no. 3 M/s. Ankita Films is also content owner to monetize music and video on premiere internet & mobile platforms including Google Music, Amazon, iTunes, Ganna, Wynk, JioSaavn, Spotify, Dailymotion, HULU, Netflix, YouTube etc. 2.2. Plaintiffs have further alleged that the defendant no. 2 was exploring and reconnoitring Bhojpuri songs with the defendant no. 4 & 5, whereas the defendant no. 6 is an American online video sharing and social media platform. YouTube is content creator and uploading over 100 hours of content per minute and carrying out its work under Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998 "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act".
2.3. Plaintiffs have further alleged that the defendant no. 1 approached to the plaintiffs in the year 2018 for singing songs and to upload online portal of the defendant no. 4, accordingly an agreement dated 06.02.2018 was executed between them and one chennel was created for songs https:// youtube.com/channel/UCaDIqVCe5e MZWXrdh87zG0w. It is further alleged that the defendant nos. 2 & 3 were strangers to the plaintiffs but they provided platform to the defendant no. 1 to explore his songs under their platform i.e. aadishakti films - youtube & GMJ - Global Music Junction - Bhojpuri - Youtube. It is further alleged that on 06.02.2018, the parties entered into an agreement which was to continue till 31.12.2021 and the defendant no. 1 bound himself by this contract to create contents Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA KUMAR Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. KUMAR Date: 4/46 2026.01.28 16:54:32 +0530 exclusively for the plaintiffs. It is further alleged that as per terms and conditions of agreement, the defendant no. 1 was restrained not to enter into any other agreement with any person or company except for DUET songs and to sing Solo Songs only for RCM Music. It is further alleged that after this agreement, the defendant no. 1 sung approximately 258 songs for the plaintiffs which were uploaded on You tube on different channels of the plaintiffs.
2.4. Plaintiffs have further alleged that despite execution of agreement dated 06.02.2018, the defendant no.1 started singing songs for other music companies in breach/ violation of agreement dated 06.02.2018. The plaintiffs come to know about this breach of agreement and served a legal notice upon the defendant no.1 thereby asking to stop singing songs for other music companies but the defendant no. 1 refused to comply with, due to the plaintiffs instituted a Civil Suit No. 114/2018, which got settled through mediation and the plaintiffs paid Rs. 2 Lacs to the defendant no. 1 to continue with agreement till 31st December, 2021. It is further alleged that after compromise dated 01.06.2019, the defendant no. 1 refused to work and left Delhi to his native village and thereafter the plaintiffs came to know that he had started singing songs for other companies like Ankita Films managed by Digital Media on http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=AaLEjwfzP1Y.
2.5. Plaintiffs have further alleged that the defendant no. 1 refused to listen the plaintiffs and sent forged NOC letter allegedly issued by the plaintiffs in his favour to free him to sing songs for anyone. Plaintiffs Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA KUMAR Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. 5/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:54:35 +0530 realized that NOC letter dated 03.06.2021 was forged and was issued in favour of another Singer Hariom Jha @ Mittho Marshal on 02.09.2020 and was forged by the defendant no. 1 in the form of no objection dated
03.06.2021. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs filed Civil Contempt Petition against the defendant no.1 for disobeying settlement order of Ld. Civil Judge in Civil Suit No. 114/2019, but the defendant no. 1 continued with his activities and recorded various songs for the defendant no. 4 and 5 and uploaded on the portal of the defendant no. 6. Plaintiffs served a legal notice upon the defendant nos. 1, 4 and 6 but they did not reply it till 03.08.2021, whereas the defendant no. 1 sent a false reply dated 04.08.2021 and denied everything.
2.6. Plaintiffs have further alleged that the defendant no. 1 was associated with the plaintiffs but has failed to comply with agreement and has caused losses of Rs. 10 Lacs to the plaintiffs by breach of contract. Plaintiffs have sought damages for breach of contract and have prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain the defendant no. 1 from singing songs for the defendant no. 2 to 5 and also to restrain from uploading songs of the defendant no.1 on YouTube and other online music channels. It is further prayed that the defendants be restrained from recording and uploading and exploiting music channels and videos links in violation of the contract and infringed material may be delivered to the plaintiffs and the defendants also be directed to pay damages and rendition of accounts to the plaintiffs qua earning by infringed material along with cost of the suit.
Digitally
signed by
DEVENDRA
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA KUMAR
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. KUMAR Date: 6/46
2026.01.28
16:54:40
+0530
3. Defendant no. 1 has filed written statement thereby alleging that the plaintiffs have not exhausted their remedy under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, due to this suit is liable to be rejected outrightly. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs have filed this suit regarding agreement dated 06.12.2018, whereas no such agreement has been placed on record. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs have earned in crores from his 258 Bhojpuri songs but they have not paid amount in terms of Clause 12 of terms and conditions of agreement dated 02.06.2018 and merely paid Rs. 50,000/- on 03.12.2018 and 20.02.2019, though they signed document to pay Rs. 1 Lac per year in three instalments and issued a cheque for Rs. 1.5 Lacs, due to this suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs have not paid amount of Rs. 2 Lacs as per settlement dated 26.04.2019 for extension of agreement upto 31.12.2021 and have concealed the material facts, due to this suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the defendant never received any demand notice and sung songs for other companies only after receiving NOC from the plaintiffs dated 03.06.2021 and he has not violated terms and conditions of agreement dated 02.06.2018. It is prayed that this suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
3.1. Defendant no.1 has denied all the allegations of the plaintiffs and has alleged that on 02.06.2018, an agreement was executed between the parties containing clause 12 that after release of films / albums, the plaintiffs shall pay reasonable commission on percentage basis to the defendant no. 1. It is further alleged that the defendant no.1 has sung about 258 songs, uploaded on different channels on You Tube and the plaintiffs have earned a lot of CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 Digitally signed by DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. KUMAR 7/46 DEVENDRA Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:54:44
+0530
money but they have paid only Rs. 50,000/- on 03.12.2018 and 20.02.2019 to the defendant and Rs.1.5 Lac through cheque despite agreement to pay Rs. 3 Lacs and percentage but no percentage amount has been paid and suit has filed just to harass the defendant. Defendant has denied that any condition was mentioned in the agreement dated 02.06.2018 that the plaintiffs shall create a channel in the name of the defendant and rather the plaintiffs have issue NOC and only then the defendant no.1 has sung songs and did not receive any legal notice from the plaintiffs. It is further alleged that on 26.04.2019, the plaintiffs intentionally misguided the defendant no. 1 to execute settlement but failed to pay any amount for extension of agreement dated 02.06.2018 and rather issued NOC dated 03.06.2021, due to the defendant no. 1 was free to sing song for any other party and this suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.2. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 were duly served and granted opportunities dated 20.11.2021 and 17.01.2022 to file WS but failed to file it and their right to file WS was forfeited vide order dated 21.03.2022. Thereafter, the defendant nos. 1 to 4 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.02.2023. However, the defendant no. 1 filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was allowed, subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- and the defendant no.1 has contested this case.
3.3. Defendant no. 5 has filed written statement thereby denying all the allegations of the plaintiffs and has alleged that it was dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no.1 has been impleaded unnecessarily and suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties, CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 Digitally signed Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. by DEVENDRA 8/46 KUMAR DEVENDRA Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:54:48
+0530
as the defendant no. 5 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to this suit and suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant no. 5 as agreement entered between the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 and it was only within their knowledge and the defendant no. 5 has nothing to do with it. It is further alleged that the defendant no. 1 provided no objection certificate dated 19.07.2021 in favour of Satish Kumar Rai (an employee of defendant no. 5), his affiliates, assignees and licensees etc. to transfer rights, titles and interest in original works and songs which was original work of the defendant no.1 and no liabilities may be attributed to the defendant no. 5. It is further alleged that agreement dated 02.06.2018 has already expired way back on 01.06.2021 and the plaintiffs have played a fraud against the defendant no. 1 by misrepresenting facts and this suit is abuse of the process of law. Defendant no. 5 has denied all the allegations of the plaintiffs and has prayed that suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.4. Defendant no. 6 has filed written statement thereby denying all the allegations of the plaintiffs and has alleged that the defendant no. 6 was not part of any agreement and no cause of action exists against the defendant no. 6 to file this suit. It is further alleged that the defendant no. 6 has been unnecessarily implicated to this litigation, whereas the defendant no. 6 is neither a publisher nor uploader of the alleged contents and the defendant no. 6 is under obligation to comply with any direction of the court and is ready to abide by being intermediary. Defendant no. 6 has alleged that it is an inter-se dispute between the parties and the defendant no. 6 may be deleted from the array of parties and suit is liable to be dismissed.
Digitally
signed by
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 9/46
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28
16:54:53
+0530
4. Plaintiffs have filed replication to written statements of the defendants thereby denying all allegations of the defendants and have reiterated their pleadings.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 19.08.2023 as under:
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages against defendant no. 1 or any other defendant and if yes, to what amount? OPP
2. Relief.
6. However, Ld. Predecessor modified and framed fresh issues vide order dated 06.03.2025 as under:
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages for breach of agreement dated 06.02.2018 to the tune of Rs. 10,08,000/- against defendant no. 1? OPP
2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for non compliance of section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015? OPD-1
3. Relief.
7. To prove case, the plaintiff has examined PW1 Rakesh Kumar, who has deposed in verbatim of plaint during examination in chief and has relied upon documents Ex. PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/24 and Mark A to Mark C. Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 10/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:54:58 +0530 7.1. During cross examination, PW1 has deposed that he did not remember when the name of the plaintiff no. 1 company was struck off from the records of ROC, or when its revival application was filed with ROC. It is further deposed that revival application has been allowed but he has not placed record it and has denied that the name of the plaintiff no. 1 has struck off in official records of ROC and copy of Master Roll is Mark D5A. It is further deposed that he is director of the plaintiff no.1 but has not filed any Board Resolution to authorizing him to institute this suit on behalf of the plaintiff company.
7.1.1. PW1 has further deposed that the plaintiff no. 3 was formed in the year 2012. It is further deposed that he suffered huge losses on account of breach of agreement by the defendant no. 1, which was executed in February, 2018, again said, in June, 2018. It is further deposed that agreement was executed between RCM Music and the defendant no. 1. and it is denied that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file present suit, as the plaintiffs were not a party to this agreement. It is further deposed that he received forged NOC Ex.PW1/17 in the year 2021 sent by some company at Mumbai on his WhatsApp number that the defendant no. 1 had approached that company for singing of songs.
7.1.2. PW1 has further deposed that he posted on Facebook of M/s Rakesh Cine Media Rakesh Kumar regarding forgery of NOC by the defendant no. 1 and also sent email and WhatsApp massages to Ankita Films, MS Digital and Adishakti, however, he has not filed those WhatsApp, e-mails and Facebook massages on record. It is further deposed that he was not aware Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA DEVENDRA KUMAR Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. 11/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:55:03 +0530 about order passed in contempt application but M/s Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. was not a party to said Civil Contempt Petition filed against order dated 01.06.2019 in Civil Suit No. 114/2019. It is admitted that he has not impleaded all companies to present suit for which the defendant no. 1 has sung songs in violation of court order dated 01.06.2019.
7.1.3. PW1 has further deposed that he suffered financial loss of Rs.10 lacs and mental agony by violation of order dated 01.06.19 by the defendant no.
1, as earlier he was getting amount from Google, Facebook, You Tube and Instagram but revenue from social media decreased by Rs.10 Lacs when the defendant no. 1 stopped singing songs for his company. However, he has not filed any document to show that he has suffered losses of Rs.10 lacs. It is admitted that he paid Rs. 2 Lacs to the defendant no. 1 as per settlement dated 26.04.2019 through Mediation Centre. It is further admitted that he did not issue any public notice regarding order dated 01.06.2019 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 114/2019.
7.1.4. PW1 has further admitted that he has not placed on record any document regarding averment in Paras 10 and 11 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. It is denied that the plaintiffs have not adopted pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. It is further deposed that he has been representing the plaintiff no. 3, which is his proprietorship concern, whereas the plaintiff no. 1 has dissolved in the year 2019. It is further deposed that the defendant no. 1 approached him for singing of songs in the year 2018 and he put his songs on platforms of the defendant no. 2 to 6. It is admitted that he has not placed on record original Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 KUMAR Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 12/46 Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:55:08
+0530
agreement executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1., Copy of which is Mark B. It is further deposed that the defendant no. 1 sung around 284 songs for him uptill June, 2021 whereas agreement was valid upto December, 2021. It is further deposed that he has paid around Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant no. 1 for his performance till now including amount paid in previous civil suit. It is further admitted that he has not placed on record any proof that he has paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant no. 1. It is further admitted that he cannot tell how much amount he has earned from songs sung by the defendant no. 1 for him. It is further admitted that he cannot place on record any proof to show how much amount he has earned from the songs sung by the defendant no. 1.
7.1.5. PW1 has further deposed that the plaintiffs have 4-5 YouTube Channels i.e. RCM Bhojpuri, RCM Music Bhojpuri, RCM Music Official, RCM Music Bhakti and RCM Bhaktisagar on which he used to upload songs sung by the defendant no. 1 and one channel was in the name of the defendant no. 1 namely Dhananjay Dhadkan Official. It is further deposed that he did not issue any NOC to the defendant no. 1 but he forged NOC Ex. PW-1/17 on the basis of NOC issued to Hari Om Jha @ Mithu Marshal, which is Ex. PW-1/18. It is admitted that he did not lodge any police complaint against the defendant no. 1 regarding forgery of NOC Ex. PW-1/17. It is further deposed that he came to know about forgery of NOC Ex. PW-1/17 in the month of June, 2021 and has denied that NOC Ex. PW-1/17 was not forged due to he did not lodge any police complaint against the defendant no. 1.
Digitally
signed by
DEVENDRA
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 KUMAR
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 13/46
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28
16:55:13
+0530
7.1.6. PW1 has further deposed and has denied that the defendant no. 1 has not violated terms and conditions of agreement, or that the defendant no. 1 started singing songs for other persons only after getting NOC from him. It is further denied that YouTube channel Dhananjay Dhadkan Official was channel of the defendant no. 1 but he retained access of said channel unofficially. It is further denied that the defendant no. 1 is not liable to pay damages, as he has not breached any condition of agreement.
7.2. PW2 Naval Kishore was not aware about contents of his affidavit but has deposed that he was employee of RCM Music and was handling production of audio-video, serial, advertisements etc. since 2009. It is further deposed that agreement dated 06.06.2018 was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 at Tis Hazari Courts in his presence.
7.3. PW3 Mahboob Alam was employee of the plaintiffs since the year 2013-14 and used to take singers from shooting location/s to office of the plaintiff no. 1 and stood witness to agreement dated 02.06.2018, executed between the defendant no. 1 (Dhananjay Dhadkan) and Rakesh Kumar at Tis Hazari Courts, which was also notarized in his presence.
7.4. PW4 Hari Om Jha has deposed that he used to sing songs for the plaintiff Rakesh Kumar but has left RCM after obtaining NOC and started singing for his own company. It is further deposed that in the month of May, 2021, Dhanjay Dhadkan visited him and asked to show his NOC and he showed him accordingly. However, the plaintiff Rakesh Kumar told him that NOC was forged. However, during cross examination, he has deposed CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 Digitally signed Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. by DEVENDRA 14/46 KUMAR DEVENDRA Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:55:18
+0530
that his affidavit got attested in office of Advocate. He has further deposed that he does not understand English.
8. Defendants have examined DW1 Rakesh Kumar, who has deposed in in verbatim of his written statement during examination in chief, but has not relied upon any document.
8.1. During cross examination, DW1 has admitted that he knew the plaintiff Rakesh Kumar since the year 2018 and used to sing songs for Rakesh & Company. It is further deposed that he did not sign any agreement with Rakesh & Company but it is admitted that Mark B is bearing his signatures at Points A to D. It is further deposed that he signed agreement during his first visit to Delhi on invitation by Rakesh Kumar, as his one song had gone viral and Rakesh Kumar called him to Delhi. It is further deposed that Rakesh Kumar arranged for accommodation and asked him to sign a document but he was not aware about said document, however his signatures were obtained on some document. It is further deposed that Rakesh Kumar got recorded 4-5 songs from him and thereafter he went back to Bihar and again visited Delhi with one of his senior artists namely Mithu Marshal for recording of songs, as he was already singer of Rakesh & Company. It is further deposed that his songs gone viral and other companies also started approaching him but he came to know that he had signed some agreement with the plaintiff but was not aware about it.
Digitally signed by DEVENDRACS (Comm) No. 134/2021 KUMAR Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors.
DEVENDRA 15/46Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:55:23
+0530
8.1.1. DW1 has further deposed that he received Rs.1- 1½ lacs approximately for recording of his songs during three years and the company also provided him a guest house to stay with other singers during his visit to Delhi. It is further deposed that the plaintiffs used to provide Rs.1000/- in a week for food and they five peoples used to sleep on floor in guest house and used to reach for video shoots by metro. It is further deposed that in year 2019, Rakesh Kumar sued him as he started singing for other companies, which were paying him Rs.1 lac per song, whereas Rakesh Kumar was not paying any amount. The copy of suit is Ex.PW1/10. It is further admitted that suit was compromised through mediation and copy of settlement is Ex.PW1/14. It is further deposed that settlement before mediation center was regarding payment of Rs.3 Lacs in lieu of recording for Rakesh & Company, but he did not receive settlement amount and his signatures at Point E were obtained. It is further admitted that settlement is bearing his correct mobile number i.e. 9798600027 and it was acted upon before the court concerned and document is Ex.PW1/15.
8.1.2. DW1 has further deposed that he visited Rakesh Kumar for NOC in the year 2021 after performing his contract but he did not remember date of his visit. It is further deposed that he did not take any photocopy of NOC from Mithu Marshal issue by Rakesh Kumar in the year 2020 and has denied to have forged NOC dated 03.06.2021 on the basis of NOC of Mithu Marshal during continuation of agreement upto December, 2021. NOC is already Ex.PW1/17 and NOC of Mithu Marshal is Ex.PW1/18. It is further deposed that he sung 2-3 songs for 2-3 local companies after issuance of NOC, of which name he did not remember. It is admitted that Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 by DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. KUMAR 16/46 DEVENDRA Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:55:28
+0530
he sang songs for the defendants no. 2 to 5, one song for each defendants and received around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- from Ankita Films, whereas other defendants did not pay any amount and rather the plaintiffs put copyright strike on his You Tube songs. It is denied that the plaintiffs never issued any NOC in his favor, or that he has forged NOC of Mithu Marshal as his own NOC and contracted with other companies to sing songs. It is denied that his father accepted entire amount in his presence in pursuance of settlement before Mediation Center.
9. Defendants no. 2 - 6 have not led any evidence and their DE was closed vide order dated 03.08.2024.
10. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My issue wise findings are as under: -
ISSUE No. 2: - The onus to prove this issue was fixed upon the defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 has examined himself as DW1 and has also cross examined PWs. However, PW1 has denied the suggest of the defendants regarding non-compliance of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act before filing of this suit. Ld. Counsel for defendants have argued that the plaintiffs initially filed this suit for permanent injunction thereby showing urgency but subsequently withdrew urgent relief of permanent injunction, which suggests that there was no urgency in filing of this case, due to this suit is barred by Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is further argued that the plaintiffs were supposed to file a formal application for seeking exemption from compliance of Section 12 A of the Act but no such formal application of exemption under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Digitally CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 signed by Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 17/46 DEVENDRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:55:33 +0530 Act was filed by the plaintiffs, due to this suit is liable to be rejected being barred by law under Section 12A r/w Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs has opposed this submission and has submitted that the plaintiffs had urgency to file this suit due to they filed suit without compliance of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act with averments of urgency and Ld. Predecessor considered it and allowed the plaintiffs to pursue this case, which suggests that this court has already granted exemption from compliance of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act and suit is very well maintainable.
12. Admittedly, Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory in nature that any suit without mandatory compliance of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not allowed, until and unless the courts grant liberty to file suit as urgent. However, before deciding rivel contentions, it is necessary to go through Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as under:
Section-12A. Pre-litigation Mediation and Settlement.--(1) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre- litigation mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government. (2) For the purposes of pre-litigation mediation, the Central Government may, by notification, authorise--
(i) the Authority, constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987); or
(ii) a mediation service provider as defined under clause (m) of Section 3 of the Mediation Act, 2023.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), the Authority or mediation service Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 KUMAR Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 18/46 Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:55:38
+0530
provider authorised by the Central Government under sub-section (2) shall complete the process of mediation within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of application made by the plaintiff under sub-section (1):
Provided that the period of mediation may be extended for a further period of sixty days with the consent of the parties: Provided further that, the period during which the parties spent for pre-litigation mediation shall not be computed for the purposes of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963). (4) If the parties to the commercial dispute arrive at a settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the parties and the mediator.
(5) The mediated settlement agreement arrived at under this section shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the Mediation Act, 2023.]
13. Section 12A came into interpretation before Hon'ble Apex court in case titled Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 and relevant observations are as under:
48. In contrast, Section 12-A cannot be described as a mere procedural law. Exhausting pre-institution mediation by the plaintiff, with all the benefits that may accrue to the parties and, more importantly, the justice delivery system as a whole, would make Section 12-A not a mere procedural provision. The design and scope of the Act, as amended in 2018, by which Section 12-A was inserted, would make it clear that Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavour. Any other interpretation would not only be in the teeth of the express language used but, more importantly, result in frustration of the object of the Act and the Rules.
113. Having regard to all these circumstances, we would dispose of the matters in the following manner:
113.1. We declare that Section 12-A of the Act is mandatory and hold that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12-A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo motu by the court as explained earlier in the judgment. We, however, make this declaration effective from 20-8-
2022 so that stakeholders concerned become sufficiently informed.
Digitally
signed by
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 19/46
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28
16:55:44
+0530
113.2. Still further, we however direct that in case plaints have been already rejected and no steps have been taken within the period of limitation, the matter cannot be reopened on the basis of this declaration. Still further, if the order of rejection of the plaint has been acted upon by filing a fresh suit, the declaration of prospective effect will not avail the plaintiff.
113.3. Finally, if the plaint is filed violating Section 12-A after the jurisdictional High Court has declared Section 12-A mandatory also, the plaintiff will not be entitled to the relief.
14. Further, in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, it has held that;
5. Section 12-A of the CC Act does not contemplate leave of the court, as is clear from the language and words used therein. Nor does the provision necessarily require an application seeking exemption. An application seeking waiver on account of urgent interim relief setting out grounds and reasons may allay a challenge and assist the court, but in the absence of any statutory mandate or rules made by the Central Government, an application per se is not a condition under Section 12-A of the CC Act; pleadings on record and oral submissions would be sufficient.
6. The words used in Section 12-A of the CC Act are -- "A suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief", wherein the word "contemplate" connotes to deliberate and consider. Further, the legal position that the plaint can be rejected and not entertained reflects application of mind by the court viz. the requirement of "urgent interim relief".
10. We are of the opinion that when a plaint is filed under the CC Act, with a prayer for an urgent interim relief, the commercial court should examine the nature and the subject-matter of the suit, the cause of action, and the prayer for interim relief. The prayer for urgent interim relief should not be a disguise or mask to wriggle out of and get over Section 12-A of the CC Act. The facts and circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Non-grant of interim relief at the ad interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and examination, will not justify dismissal of the commercial suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code; at times, interim relief is granted after issuance of notice. Nor can the suit be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, because the CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 Digitally signed Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. by DEVENDRA 20/46 KUMAR DEVENDRA Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:55:49
+0530
interim relief, post the arguments, is denied on merits and on examination of the three principles, namely : (i) prima facie case, (ii) irreparable harm and injury, and (iii) balance of convenience. The fact that the court issued notice and/or granted interim stay may indicate that the court is inclined to entertain the plaint.
11. Having stated so, it is difficult to agree with the proposition that the plaintiff has the absolute choice and right to paralyse Section 12-A of the CC Act by making a prayer for urgent interim relief. Camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of pre- litigation mediation should be checked when deception and falsity is apparent or established. The proposition that the commercial courts do have a role, albeit a limited one, should be accepted, otherwise it would be up to the plaintiff alone to decide whether to resort to the procedure under Section 12-A of the CC Act. An "absolute and unfettered right" approach is not justified if the pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the CC Act is mandatory, as held by this Court in Patil Automation.
12. The words "contemplate any urgent interim relief" in Section 12- A(1) of the CC Act, with reference to the suit, should be read as conferring power on the court to be satisfied. They suggest that the suit must "contemplate", which means the plaint, documents and facts should show and indicate the need for an urgent interim relief. This is the precise and limited exercise that the commercial courts will undertake, the contours of which have been explained in the earlier paragraph(s). This will be sufficient to keep in check and ensure that the legislative object/intent behind the enactment of Section 12-A of the CC Act is not defeated.
15. In a recent judgment titled Aaone Developers (P) Ltd. v. Sabita Jha, (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 28, Hon'ble High Court has observed that;
22. The application for interim relief is still pending and the question whether the plaintiff will eventually succeed in the said application when the same is examined by this Court on the touchstone of three principles, namely: (i) prima facie case; (ii) irreparable harm and injury; and (iii) the balance of convenience, is not to be gone into at this stage nor the eventual dismissal of the said application can lead to rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, at this stage suffice it to note that this Court was inclined to entertain the application for interim relief as it issued notice in the application and subsequently vide order 27-9-2023 in Aaone Developers (P) Digitally CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 signed by Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 21/46 DEVENDRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:55:55 +0530 Ltd. v. Sabita Jha the court fixed the matter at a short date i.e. on 5- 10-2023 having regard to the urgency articulated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
23. The above aspect of the matter shows that the interim relief sought was justified and not camouflage or guise to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-institution mediation.
After going through abovesaid judgments, it is clear that, though the requirements of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory in nature, yet in case of urgent or interim relief, it may be exempted, provided urgency must not be intended just to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-institution mediation.
16. Now case in hand has to be seen. Plaintiffs had filed this suit with urgent application for exemption from compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and ground of urgency mentioned therein is as under:
"That in spite of agreement with the plaintiff the defendant no.1 singing songs with the other defendants no. 2 to 3, it's a breach of contract dated 6th February 2018 and same was uploaded on the defendant no.4 for the viewer to the public at large and earn the revenue. The plaintiff sent a legal notice but the defendant no.1 refused to acknowledge the request of the plaintiffs and continue to his breach of contract and copy right of the plaintiff. Hence present suit."
17. Ld. Predecessor entertained this suit on the basis of abovesaid urgency and issued notice to the defendants and thereafter this suit kept on going without any objection from the opposite party till framing of issues.
Digitally
signed by
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 22/46
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28
16:55:59
+0530
Though the defendant no.1 raised this objection u/s 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in WS, yet he did not press for rejection of suit on this ground despite knowing that compliance of the provision was mandatory in nature, due to it shall be considered that this suit is very well maintainable despite non-compliance of Section 12A of the Act. The law laid down by judgments cited herein above is clear that urgency of relief is parameter to determine exemption from pre-institution mediation and ultimate outcome of such urgent relief is not relevant. Similarly, in this case also, the plaintiffs sought interim relief/s and the court entertained this suit without insisting upon compliance of Section 12 A and issued notice to the defendants. This suit remained pending for long and subsequent withdrawal of relief/s of permanent injunction cannot withdrew exemption under Section 12A of the Act already granted. As such, the defendants have failed to discharge the onus to prove this Issue no.2 and issue is decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
18. ISSUE NO. 1: The onus to prove this issue was put upon the plaintiffs and to discharge the onus, the plaintiffs have examined PW1 Rakesh Kumar and have also cross examined DW1. However, before giving findings on this issue, it is necessary to determine locus standi of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 to file this suit. Plaintiff no. 1 has claimed itself to be a Private Limited Company and the plaintiff no. 2 is its director. Admittedly, a suit has to be filed for and on behalf of company through its Authorized Representative or office bearers mentioned under Order XXIX Rule 1 of CPC. As such, maintainability of this suit on behalf of the plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 has to be determined.
Digitally
signed by
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 23/46
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28
16:56:03
+0530
Institution of Suit on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 & 2
19. This suit has been instituted by the plaintiff no.2 Rakesh Kumar on behalf of the plaintiff no.1 M/s Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. However, the plaintiff no. 1 has not passed any resolution to authorize the plaintiff no.1 & 2 to institute this suit. Admittedly, a Private Limited Company is a separate legal entity and a juristic person and must be represented through its Authorized Representative duly authorized by Board Resolution in favor of AR or any individual director. However, any individual director has no authority to represent the corporation / company without valid authorization through Board Resolution passed by Board of Directors. The relevant provision Order XXIX Rule 1 of CPC is as under:
Order XXIX Rule 1. Subscription and verification of pleading.-- In suit by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.
20. In view of Order XXIX Rule 1 of CPC, office bearer/ authority mentioned in this provision must sign and verify pleadings i.e. Secretary, Director, or any other Principal Officer of the company / corporation. Besides it, authority of other recognized agents has been prescribed under Order III Rule 1 & 2 of CPC as under:
Rule 1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader.--Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader [appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf : Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person.
Digitally
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 signed by
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 24/46
DEVENDRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28
16:56:09
+0530
Rule 2. Recognised agents. --The recognised agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are--
(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;
(b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorised to make and do such appearances, applications and acts.
21. In view of abovesaid legal proposition, it further stands proved that recognized representative may be authorized by way of Power of Attorney / Resolution of Board of Directors in terms of Section 291 of Companies Act, 1956 (Now corresponding section under Companies Act, 2013). The authority of Authorized Representative under Order III Rule 1 & 2 CPC viz-a-viz signing authority of Authorized Representative under Order XXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been defined in case titled Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (1991) 70 Comp Cas 388 (Delhi) as under:
Order 3, rule 1 provides that any appearance, application or act in or to any court required or authorise by law can be made or done by the party in person or by his recognized agent or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf. Provided of course, such an appearance, application or act in or to any court is required or authorised by law to be done or done by a party in such court. Where, however, there is an express provision of law, then that provision will prevail. Thus, if an authority is given to a pleader or a recognised agent as provided by law, the recognised agent or pleader can file an appearance or file a suit in court if the party himself is not in a position to file it. In my view, if a party is a company or a corporation, the recognised agent or a pleader has to be authorise by law to file such a plaint. Such an authority can be given to a pleader or an agent in the case of a company by a person specifically authorised in this behalf. In other words, a pleader or an agent can be authorised to file a suit on behalf of a company only by an authorised representative of the company. If a director or a secretary is authorised Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 25/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:56:20 +0530 by law, then he can certainly give the authority to another person as provided under Order 3, rule 1.
The authority of a principal officer of'a company in relation to suits filed on behalf of the limited company does not extend beyond what is laid down in Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That provision does not entitle the principal officer of a company to file a suit on its behalf and for that the authority has to be found either in the articles of association of the company or in the resolution of its board of directors. In the articles of association of several companies, provision is generally made authorizing their managing directors and other officers to file and defend suits on their behalf. Similarly, the board of directors of a company can authorize the institution of a suit on behalf of the company by a resolution. In the case of some companies the articles empower the managing director or directors to appoint general attorneys and general managers and given them authority to institute suits on behalf of the company. But in the absence of any proof in regard to any such power having been conferred on Shri Ram Lal Choudhary, it is not possible to accept his statement that he was authorised to file the suit as the principal officer of the plaintiff hotel.
It is well-settled that under section 291 of the Companies Act except where express provision is made that the powers of a company in respect of a particular matter are to be exercised by the company in general meeting, in all other cases the board of directors are entitled to exercise all its powers. Individual directors have such powers only as are vested in them by the memorandum and articles. It is true that ordinarily the court will not unsuit a person on account of technicalities. However, the question of authority to institute a suit on behalf of a company is not a technical matter. It has far-reaching effects. It often affects the policy and finances of the company. Thus unless a power to institute a suit is specifically conferred on a particular director, he has no authority to institute a suit on behalf of the company. Needless to say such a power can be conferred by the board of directors only by passing a resolution in that regard.
22. By abovesaid judgment, it is clear that pleadings must be signed by office bearer / authority mentioned under Order XXIX Rule 1, or by an authorized agent / representative. The authorization of authorized representative may be in terms of Order III Rule 2 of CPC, or by the company through Resolution of Board of Directors in terms of Section 291 Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 KUMAR Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 26/46 Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:56:25
+0530
of Companies Act, 1956 (or corresponding section under Companies Act, 2013). However, authority of a person/s mentioned under Order XXIX Rule 1 of CPC to sign pleadings must be proved through Article of Association, or Resolution of Board of Directors as held in case titled State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computers (I) (P) Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 524 as under:
14. In our view, the judgment under challenge is liable to be set aside because the respondent had not produced any evidence to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was appointed as a Director of the Company and a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of the Company to file a suit against the appellant and authorised Shri Ashok K. Shukla to do so. The letter of authority issued by Shri Raj K. Shukla, who described himself as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, was nothing but a scrap of paper because no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors delegating its powers to Shri Raj K. Shukla to authorise another person to file a suit on behalf of the Company.
13. The Division Bench of the High Court did take cognizance of the fact that the Company had not summoned any witness from the office of the Registrar of Companies to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was a Director of the Company and that the minute book of the Company had not been produced to prove the appointment of Shri Ashok K. Shukla as a Director, but reversed the finding of the trial court on Issue 1 on the basis of the authority letter issued by Shri Raj K. Shukla and resolutions dated 14-2-2001 and 19-4-2001, by which the Board of Directors of the Company had authorised some persons to operate the bank account.
As such, it stands proved that any suit on behalf of a company / corporation cannot be maintained without valid authority/ authorization.
23. In the present case, the plaintiff no.1 is a company and its Memorandum and Articles of Association along with registration certificate are already on record and has been relied upon by PW1 as Mark A. Digitally CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 signed by DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. 27/46 DEVENDRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:56:29 +0530 However, the plaintiffs have not proved any Resolution of Board of Directors of the plaintiff no. 1 to institute this suit through the plaintiff no.
2. Rather, name of the plaintiff no.1 has been struck off from Roll of Companies maintained by ROC. PW1 has admitted during cross examination that he could not recollect when the name of the plaintiff no. 1 was struck off the records of ROC and has not placed on record revival application. Contrary to it, PW1 has admitted during cross examination dated 27.03.2025 that the plaintiff no.1 has been dissolved in the year 2019 and if the plaintiff no.1 has been dissolved much prior to filing of this suit, then the plaintiff no.2 can maintain this suit on behalf of the plaintiff no.1.
24. Similarly, the authority of director/s of a company depends on the existence of the company itself and if a company get dissolved, then designation of director/s automatically go. In fact, PW1 has duly admitted that the plaintiff no.1 has already been dissolved in the year 2019, due to the plaintiff no.2 cannot institute this suit in the year 2021 on behalf of the plaintiffs no. 1. As such, this suit has been filed on behalf of a dissolved company through erstwhile director and is not maintainable in terms of Order 29 Rule 1 CPC r/w Section 291 of Companies Act, 1956 (Corresponding Section of Companies Act, 2013).
25. Further, the plaintiff no. 3 is proprietorship firm M/s Rakesh Cine Media and the plaintiff no.4 has claimed himself to be its proprietor. A proprietorship firm is not a separate legal entity and is to be represented through its proprietor, due to this suit is maintainable on behalf of the plaintiff no. 3 and 4. No doubt, the plaintiffs have not proved any document Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 28/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:56:34 +0530 regarding incorporation of this business name but still pleas of the plaintiff nos. 3 & 4 are being considered.
Whether agreement for singing Mark-B was executed between the parties, if so between whom
26. Plaintiffs have alleged that agreement Mark B was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.1 agreed to sing folks / regional language songs only for the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs have not proved original agreement and have relied upon a copy of agreement Mark-B. Plaintiffs have examined PW2 Naval Kishore and PW3 Mehboob Alam to prove execution of agreement Mark B. No doubt a copy of agreement may be treated as secondary evidence and may be proved through witness/es of execution of such document. However, testimony of PW2 Naval Kishore has proved execution of Mark B on 06.02.2018, whereas PW3 Mehboob Alam has proved on 06.06.2019. In fact, both witnesses of a same document have given different dates of execution of agreement Mark B, which creates a doubt in execution of agreement. If original of Mark B is not produced before the court for inspection and both witnesses have given different dates of execution, then execution of document became doubtful. As such, production of original of Mark B was necessary to ascertain genuineness of document, which is not done, due to authenticity of Mark B could not be ascertain.
27. Further, locus standi of the plaintiffs no. 3 & 4 to file this suit based upon agreement Mark B is also doubtful and questionable. Agreement Mark B was executed between M/s RCM Music Ltd. / plaintiff no.1 Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 29/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:56:40 +0530 through its Director Rakesh Kumar and the defendant no. 1 Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhananjay Dadkan. Plaintiff no. 1 M/s Rakesh Cine Media was a Private Limited Company and signed Mark B with the defendant no.1 and became beneficiary of Mark-B. However, before dissolution way back in the year 2019, the plaintiff no.1 did not transfer its rights qua Mark B in favor of the plaintiffs no. 3 & 4 to seek enforcement against breach of Mark B. In fact, the plaintiffs no. 3 & 4 have not led any evidence to prove, as to how they acquired rights to seek enforcement of Mark B or claim damages against its breach, if the plaintiff no.1 is not in existence.
28. In fact, in the absence of proving any right on the property of the plaintiff no.1 after its dissolution, the plaintiffs no. 3 & 4 cannot maintain this suit on behalf of the plaintiff no. 1. As such, the claim of the plaintiff no.1 also ceased to exist with its dissolution including Mark-B. Plaintiff no. 3 is a proprietorship firm and the plaintiff no. 4 has claimed himself to be its proprietor but they have not proved their authority to file this suit against the defendant no.1 regarding agreement Mark B entered into by the plaintiff no.1. As such, the plaintiffs no. 3 & 4 have no locus standi to file this suit qua agreement Mark B.
29. Though this suit has been filed by the plaintiffs qua agreement Mark B executed between the plaintiff no.1 and the defendant no.1 prior to its dissolution, yet plea of forgery of NOC taken of the plaintiffs is being considered.
Digitally
signed by
DEVENDRA
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 30/46
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28
16:56:44
+0530
Whether plaintiffs issued NOC Ex.PW1/17 in favour of defendant no.1 or the defendant no.1 forged it The main dispute between the parties was / is regarding NOC Ex.PW1/17. The plaintiffs have alleged that they have not issued any NOC in favour of the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no.1 has forged it on the basis of NOC issued in favor of PW4 Hari Om Jha @ Mithu Marshal. On the other hand, the defendant no. 1 has allegedly that NOC was issued by Mr. Rakesh Kumar. Though I have already observed that execution of agreement Mark B could not be proved, yet PW1 has deposed that he did not issue any NOC Ex. PW1//17 in favour of the defendant no.1. He has further proved that he received copy of forged NOC on his WhatsApp from some other company at Mumbai to whom the defendant no. 1 approached to sing songs. It is further proved that PW1 posted NOC on Facebook page of M/s Rakesh Cine Media and also sent e-mails and WhatsApp massages to Ankita Films, M/s Digital and Adishakti. However, the plaintiffs have not proved any such e-mails / WhatsApp massage on record to prove that they received NOC through social media.
30. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs has argued that NOC Ex.PW1/17 was forged and was copy of NOC issued in favor of PW4 Mithu Marshal, whereas testimony of PW4 has nowhere proved that the defendant no.1 forged NOC Ex.PW1/17 on the basis of his NOC Ex.PW1/18. PW4 has just deposed that he showed his NOC to the defendant no.1, who duplicated it, but PW4 has failed to maintain his testimony during cross examination and has failed to prove that the defendant no.1 forged NOC. There is no expert report of comparison of both NOC to decide that NOC Ex.PW1/17 was CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 Digitally signed by DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. KUMAR 31/46 DEVENDRA Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:56:49
+0530
forged. In fact, PW4 has failed to prove that Ex.PW1/17 was/ is forged and fabricated.
31. Admittedly, a forgery of document has to be proved through production of forged and original document for comparison of the court, or by examination of expert by indicating forgery, but in this case, the plaintiffs have not proved in what manner Ex.PW1/17 is forged and fabricated. Plaintiffs have not proved record of NOCs issued in favor of other singers to prove that Ex.PW1/17 was forged and fabricated in comparison of those NOCs. Even, there is no evidence of comparison of Ex.PW1/17 and Ex.PW1/18 to prove that one of them was forged. In fact, there must be some evidence to prove that Ex.PW1/17 was forged and merely examination of PW4 that he showed his NOC to the defendant no.1 could not prove that the defendant no.1 forged his NOC as his own. As such, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendant no.1 forged NOC to relieve himself from compliance of agreement Mark-B, due to breach of agreement could not be proved.
Whether defendant no.1 breached agreement Mark-B and plaintiffs are entitled for damages for its breach
32. The onus to prove breach of agreement Mark B was on the plaintiffs but the plaintiffs have failed to prove existence of Mark B or forgery of NOC Ex.PW1/17 to relieve the defendant no.1 from its compliance. So far as relief against breach of agreement Mark B is concerned, PW1 Rakesh Kumar has deposed that he suffered huge losses by breach of agreement Mark B. However, if agreement Mark B belonged to the plaintiff no.1, then Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 by DEVENDRA KUMAR Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 32/46 Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:56:55
+0530
suffering of losses by the plaintiffs no. 3 & 4 was / is beyond explanation.
33. PW1 has further proved that the plaintiffs suffered financial losses of about Rs. 10 Lacs by violation of agreement Mark B, as earlier he was getting amount from Google, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram, but the defendant no. 1 stopped singing and revenue decreased by Rs. 10 Lacs. Besides it, he also paid Rs. 2 Lacs to the defendant no. 1 pursuant to settlement dated 26.04.2019 through Mediation Cell, but the defendant left Delhi. However, the plaintiffs have not proved any document to prove actual earning of the plaintiffs prior to breach of agreement Mark B viz a viz earning after its violation. Contrary to it, PW1 has admitted that he cannot say how much amount he earned from songs of the defendant no. 1. Plaintiffs allegedly used to upload songs on 4-5 You Tube Channels namely RCM Bhojpuri, RCM Music Bhojpuri, RCM Music Official, RCM Music Bhakti and RCM Bhaktisagar besides channel of the defendant no. 1 namely Dhananjay Dhadkan Official, but earnings from such channels are not proved to calculate losses.
34. Admittedly, damages for breach of contract have to be considered within the parameters of Section 73 & 74 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, which are as under:
73. Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.--
When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
Digitally
signed by
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 33/46
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28
16:57:00
+0530
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract.--When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract. Explanation.--In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account.
Illustrations
(a) A contracts to sell and deliver 50 maunds of saltpetre to B, at a certain price to be paid on delivery. A breaks his promise. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the sum, if any, by which the contract price falls short of the price for which B might have obtained 50 maunds of salpetre of like quality at the time when the salpetre ought to have been delivered.
(b) A hires B's ship to go to Bombay, and there takes on board, on the first of January, a cargo, which, A is to provide and to bring it to Calcutta, the freight to be paid when earned. B's ship does not go to Bombay, but A has opportunities of procuring suitable conveyance for the cargo upon terms as advantageous as those on which he had chartered the ship. A avails himself of those opportunities, but is put to trouble and expense in doing so. A is entitled to receive compensation from B in respect of such trouble and expense.
(c) A contracts to buy of B, at a stated price, 50 maunds of rice, no time being fixed for delivery. A afterwards informs B that he will not accept the rice if tendered to him. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the amount, if any, by which the contract price exceeds that which B can obtain for the rice at the time when A informs B that he will not accept it.
(d) A contracts to buy B's ship for 60,000 rupees, but breaks his promise. A must pay to B, by way of compensation, the excess, if any, of the contract price over the price which B can obtain for the ship at the time of the breach of promise.
(e) A, the owner of a boat, contracts with B to take a cargo of jute to Mirzapur, for sale at that place, starting on a specified day. The boat, owing to some avoidable cause, does not start at the time appointed, whereby the arrival of the cargo at Mirzapur is delayed beyond the time when it would have arrived if the boat had sailed according to the Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 by DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. KUMAR 34/46 DEVENDRA Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:57:04
+0530
contract. After that date, and before the arrival of the cargo, the price of jute falls. The measure of the compensation payable to B by A is the difference between the price which B could have obtained for the cargo at Mirzapur at the time when it would have arrived if forwarded in due course, and its market price at the time when it actually arrived.
(f) A contracts to repair B's house in a certain manner, and receive payment in advance. A repairs the house, but not according to contract. B is entitled to recover from A the cost of making the repairs that conform to the contract.
(g) A contracts to let his ship to B for a year, from the first of January, for a certain price. Freights rise, and on the first of January, the hire obtainable for the ship is higher than the contract price. A breaks his promise. He must pay to B, by way of compensation, a sum equal to the difference between the contract price and the price for which B could hire a similar ship for a year on and from the first of January.
(h) A contracts to supply B with a certain quantity of iron at a fixed price, being a higher price than that for which A could procure and deliver the iron. B wrongfully refuses to receive the iron. B must pay to A, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the iron and the sum for which A could have obtained and delivered it.
(i) A delivers to B, a common carrier, a machine, to be conveyed without delay, to A's mill, informing B that his mill is stopped for want of the machine. B unreasonably delays the delivery of the machine, and A in consequence, loses a profitable contract with the Government. A is entitled to receive from B, by way of compensation, the average amount of profit which would have been made by the working of the mill during the time that delivery of it was delayed, but not the loss sustained through the loss of the Government contract.
(j) A, having contracted with B to supply B with 1,000 tons of iron at 100 rupees a ton, to be delivered at a stated time, contracts with C for the purchase of 1,000 tons of iron at 80 rupees a ton, telling C that he does so for the purpose of performing his contract with B. C fails to perform his contract with A, who cannot procure other iron, and B, in consequence, rescinds the contract. C must pay to A 20,000 rupees, being the profit which A would have made by the performance of his contract with B. Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 KUMAR Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 35/46 Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:57:09
+0530
(k) A contracts with B to make and deliver to B, by a fixed day, for a specified price a certain piece of machinery. A does not deliver the piece of machinery at the time specified, and, in consequence of this, B is obliged to procure another at a higher price than that which he was to have paid to A, and is prevented from performing a contract which B had made with a third person at the time of his contract with A (but which had not been then communicated to A), and is compelled to make compensation for breach of that contract. A must pay to B, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the piece of machinery and the sum paid by B for another, but not the sum paid by B to the third person by way of compensation.
(l) A, a builder, contracts to erect and finish a house by the first of January, in order that B may give possession of it at that time to C, to whom B has contracted to let it. A is informed of the contract between B and C. A builds the house so badly that, before the first of January, it falls down and has to be re-built by B, who, in consequence, loses the rent which he was to have received from C, and is obliged to make compensation to C for the breach of his contract. A must make compensation to B for the cost of rebuilding the house, for the rent lost, and for the compensation made to C.
(m) A sells certain merchandise to B, warranting it to be of a particular quality, and B, in reliance upon this warranty, sells it to C with a similar warranty. The goods prove to be not according to the warranty, and B becomes liable to pay C a sum of money by way of compensation. B is entitled to be reimbursed this sum by A.
(n) A contracts to pay a sum of money to B on a day specified. A does not pay the money on that day; B, in consequence of not receiving the money on that day, is unable to pay his debts, and is totally ruined. A is not liable to make good to B anything except the principal sum he contracted to pay, together with interest up to the day of payment.
(o) A contracts to deliver 50 maunds of saltpetre to B on the first of January, at a certain price. B, afterwards, before the first of January, contracts to sell the saltpetre to C at a price higher than the market price of the first of January. A breaks his promise. In estimating the compensation payable by A to B, the market price of the first of January, and not the profit which would have arisen to B from the sale to C, is to be taken into account.
(p) A contracts to sell and deliver 500 bales of cotton to B on a fixed day. A knows nothing of B's mode of conducting his business. A breaks his promise, and B, having no cotton, is obliged to Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 by DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. KUMAR 36/46 DEVENDRA Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:57:15
+0530
close his mill. A is not responsible to B for the loss caused to B by the closing of the mill.
(q) A contracts to sell and deliver to B, on the first of January, certain cloth which B intends to manufacture into caps of a particular kind, for which there is no demand, except at that season. The cloth is not delivered till after the appointed time, and too late to be used that year in making caps. B is entitled to receive from A, by way of compensation, the difference between the contract price of the cloth and its market price at the time of delivery, but not the profits which he expected to obtain by making caps, nor the expenses which he has been put to in making preparation for the manufacture.
(r) A, a ship-owner, contracts with B to convey him from Calcutta to Sydney in A's ship, sailing on the first of January, and B pays to A, by way of deposit, one-half of his passage-money. The ship does not sail on the first of January, and B, after being in consequence, detained in Calcutta for some time, and thereby put to some expense, proceeds to Sydney in another vessel, and, in consequence arriving too late in Sydney, loses a sum of money. A is liable to repay to B his deposit, with interest, and the expense to which he is put by his detention in Calcutta, and the excess, if any, of the passage-money paid for the second ship over that agreed upon for the first, but not the sum of money which B lost by arriving in Sydney too late.
&
74. Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for.
-- [When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for. Explanation.--A stipulation for increased interest from the date of default may be a stipulation by way of penalty.] Exception.--When any person enters into any bail-bond, recognizance or other instrument of the same nature, or, under the provisions of any law, or under the orders of the 2[Central Government] or of any 3[State Government], gives any bond for the performance of any public duty or act in which the public are interested, he shall be liable, upon breach of any condition of any such instrument, to pay the whole sum mentioned therein.
Digitally
signed by
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 37/46
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28
16:57:19
+0530
Explanation.--A person who enters into a contract with Government does not necessarily thereby undertake any public duty, or promise to do an act in which the public are interested.
Illustrations
(a) A contracts with B to pay B Rs. 1,000, if he fails to pay B Rs. 500 on a given day. A fails to pay B Rs. 500 on that day. B is entitled to recover from A such compensation not exceeding Rs. 1,000, as the Court considers reasonable.
(b) A contracts with B that, if A practises as a surgeon within Calcutta, he will pay B Rs. 5,000. A practises as a surgeon in Calcutta. B is entitled to such compensation, not exceeding Rs. 5,000, as the Court considers reasonable.
(c) A gives a recognizance binding him in a penalty of Rs. 500 to appear in Court on a certain day. He forfeits his recognizance. He is liable to pay the whole penalty.
(d) A gives B a bond for the repayment of Rs. 1,000 with interest at 12 per cent at the end of six months, with a stipulation that, in case of default, interest shall be payable at the rate of 75 per cent, from the date of default. This is a stipulation by way of penalty, and B is only entitled to recover from A such compensation as the Court considers reasonable.
(e) A, who owes money to B, a money-lender, undertakes to repay him by delivering to him 10 maunds of grain on a certain date, and stipulates that, in the event of his not delivering the stipulated amount by the stipulated date, he shall be liable to deliver 20 maunds. This is a stipulation by way of penalty and B is only entitled to reasonable compensation in case of breach.
(f) A undertakes to repay B a loan of Rs. 1,000 by five equal monthly instalments, with a stipulation that, in default of payment of any instalment, the whole shall become due. This stipulation is not by way of penalty, and the contract may be enforced according to its terms.
(g) A borrows Rs. 100 from B and gives him a bond for Rs. 200 payable by five yearly instalments of Rs. 40, with a stipulation that, in default of payment of any instalment, the whole shall become due. This is a stipulation by way of penalty.] Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 38/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:57:23 +0530
35. Perusal of both sections would show that Section 74 deals with breach of contracts in which penalty for breach is already stipulated, whereas Section 73 deals with cases where penalty for breach of contract is uncertain. In this case also, penalty for breach of contract was uncertain and Section 73 would come into play, which prescribes that the party suffering by breach may claim compensation for loss or damage which naturally occurs in the usual course of business and remote and indirect loss or damage may not be allowed. Explanation to this section further added that in estimating the loss or damage from a breach of contract including the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract, the court shall take into account such compensation also.
36. Section 73 came into interpretation in case titled Trojan & Co. Ltd. v.
Nagappa Chettiar, (1953) 1 SCC 456 and relevant observations are as under:
22. Now the rule is well settled that damages due either for breach of contract or for tort are damages which, so far as money can compensate, will give the injured party reparation for the wrongful act and for all the natural and direct consequences of the wrongful act.
Difficulty however arises in measuring the amount of this money compensation. A general principle cannot be laid down for measuring it, and every case must to some extent depend upon its own circumstance. It is, however, clear that in the absence of any special circumstances the measure of damages cannot be the amount of the loss ultimately sustained by the representee. It can only be the difference between the price which he paid and the price which he would have received if he had resold them in the market forthwith after the purchase provided of course that there was a fair market then. The question to be decided in such a case is what could the plaintiff have obtained if he had resold forthwith that which he had been induced to purchase by the fraud of the defendants. In other words, the mode of dealing with damages in such a case is to see what it would have cost him to get out of the situation i.e. how much worse off was his estate owing to the bargain in which he entered into.
Digitally signedCS (Comm) No. 134/2021 by DEVENDRA
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. KUMAR 39/46
DEVENDRA
Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:57:29
+0530
37. Further, in case titled Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra Dwarkadas, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 100, it has observed that;
9. The two principles on which damages in such cases are calculated are well-settled. The first is that, as far as possible, he who has proved a breach of a bargain to supply what he contracted to get is to be placed, as far as money can do it, in as good a situation as if the contract had been performed; but this principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any part of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps : (British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company Limited v. Underground Electric Railways Company of London [(1912) AC 673, 689] ). These two principles also follow from the law as laid down in Section 73 read with the Explanation thereof. If therefore the contract was to be performed at Kanpur it was the respondent's duty to buy the goods in Kanpur and rail them to Calcutta on the date of the breach and if it suffered any damage thereby because of the rise in price on the date of the breach as compared to the contract price, it would be entitled to be re-imbursed for the loss. Even if the respondent did not actually buy them in the market at Kanpur on the date of breach it would be entitled to damages on proof of the rate for similar canvas prevalent in Kanpur on the date of breach, if that rate was above the contracted rate resulting in loss to it. But the respondent did not make any attempt to prove the rate for similar canvas prevalent in Kanpur on the date of breach. Therefore it would obviously be not entitled to any damages at all, for on this state of the evidence it could not be said that any damage naturally arose in the usual course of things.
38. In another land mark judgment titled ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705, it has observed that;
68. From the aforesaid discussions, it can be held that:
(1) Terms of the contract are required to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the party claiming damages is entitled to the same.
(2) If the terms are clear and unambiguous stipulating the liquidated damages in case of the breach of the contract unless it is held that such estimate of damages/compensation is unreasonable or is by way of penalty, party who has committed the breach is required to pay Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 40/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:58:27 +0530 such compensation and that is what is provided in Section 73 of the Contract Act.
(3) Section 74 is to be read along with Section 73 and, therefore, in every case of breach of contract, the person aggrieved by the breach is not required to prove actual loss or damage suffered by him before he can claim a decree. The court is competent to award reasonable compensation in case of breach even if no actual damage is proved to have been suffered in consequence of the breach of a contract. (4) In some contracts, it would be impossible for the court to assess the compensation arising from breach and if the compensation contemplated is not by way of penalty or unreasonable, the court can award the same if it is genuine pre-estimate by the parties as the measure of reasonable compensation.
39. Further, in case titled Kanchan Udyog Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 237, Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with expectation of loss and relevant observations are as under:
30. That leaves the question with regard to reliance loss and the expectation loss. Whether the two could be maintainable simultaneously or were mutually exclusive? In Pollock and Mulla, 14th Edn., Vol. II, p. 1174, the primary object for protection of expectation interest, has been described as to put the innocent party in the position which he would have occupied had the contract been performed. The general aim of the law being to protect the innocent party's defeated financial expectation and compensate him for his loss of bargain, subject to the rules of causation and remoteness. The purpose of protection of reliance interest is to put the plaintiff in the position in which he would have been if the contract had never been made. The loss may include expenses incurred in preparation by the innocent party's own performance, expenses incurred after the breach or even pre-contract expenditure but subject to remoteness. The following passage from the same is considered appropriate for extraction:
"No recovery for both, the expectation loss and the reliance loss. Although the rules as to damages seek to protect both the expectation and the reliance interests, the innocent party cannot ordinarily recover both expectation loss viz. loss of profit, and reliance loss viz. expenses incurred in reliance on the promise; that would involve Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 41/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:58:55 +0530 double counting. He has to choose between the two measures.
However, he cannot claim reliance losses to put himself in a better position than if the contract had been fully performed: else, the award of damages for reliance losses would confer a windfall on the plaintiff, and would increase the damages in proportion to the claimant's inefficiency in performance, rather than in proportion to the gravity of the breach, and probably of normal principles of causation. In such cases, therefore, the plaintiff can recover the loss on account of the wasted expenditure or outlay only to the extent of the expected gain; and the onus of proving lies on the party committing the breach to show that the reliance costs (or any part of them) would not have been recouped, and would still have been wasted, had the contract been performed."
31. In C. & P. Haulage [C. & P. Haulage v. Middleton, (1983) 3 All ER 94 : (1983) 1 WLR 1461 (CA)] , which considers Cullinane [Cullinane v. British Rema Mfg. Co. Ltd. , (1954) 1 QB 292 : (1953) 3 WLR 923 (CA)] also, it has been observed as follows: (C. & P. Haulage case [C. & P. Haulage v. Middleton, (1983) 3 All ER 94 : (1983) 1 WLR 1461 (CA)] , All ER p. 99 b-e) "... The law of contract compensates a plaintiff for damages resulting from the defendant's breach; it does not compensate a plaintiff for damages resulting from his making a bad bargain. Where it can be seen that the plaintiff would have incurred a loss on the contract as a whole, the expenses he has incurred are losses flowing from entering into the contract, not losses flowing from the defendant's breach. In these circumstances, the true consequence of the defendant's breach is that the plaintiff is released from his obligation to complete the contract--or in other words, he is saved from incurring further losses. If the law of contract were to move from compensating for the consequences of breach to compensating for the consequences of entering into contracts, the law would run contrary to the normal expectations of the world of commerce. The burden of risk would be shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant would become the insurer of the plaintiff's enterprise. Moreover, the amount of the damages would increase not in relation to the gravity or consequences of the breach but in relation to the inefficiency with which the plaintiff carried out the contract. The greater his expenses owing to inefficiency, the greater the damages."
40. Further, in case titled Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442, it has held that;
Digitally
CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 signed by
Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA 42/46
DEVENDRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28
16:59:01
+0530
11. It is now well established that the contractual damages are usually awarded to compensate an injured party to a breach of contract for the loss of his bargain. In Johnson v. Agnew [Johnson v. Agnew, 1980 AC 367 : (1979) 2 WLR 487 : (1979) 1 All ER 883 (HL)] , the aforesaid case has clearly held as under: (AC p. 400) "The general principle for the assessment of damages is compensatory i.e. that the innocent party is to be placed, so far as money can do so, in the same position as if the contract had been performed."
12. The aforesaid proposition remains to hold the field and has been applied consistently. This rule is more qualified when it comes to the real estate sector. If the seller wants to limit their liability for breach of contract under the aforesaid rule, they have to portray that they have performed their obligation in a prudent manner. It may be noted that the onus is on the seller to show his best efforts and bona fides in discharging the obligation. It may be noted that even in the absence of fraud, mere unwillingness to carry out the duty could constitute bad faith sufficient for the purchaser to claim damages.
41. Further, in case titled Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 375, it has observed that;
16. This is without doubt, a sound legal and correct proposition. However, the computation of damages should not be whimsical and absurd resulting in a windfall and bounty for one party at the expense of the other. The computation of damages should not be disingenuous. The damages should commensurate with the loss sustained. In a claim for loss on account of delay in work attributable to the employer, the contractor is entitled to the loss sustained by the breach of contract to the extent and so far as money can compensate. The party should to be placed in the same situation, with the damages, as if the contract had been performed. The principle is that the sum of money awarded to the party who has suffered the injury, should be the same quantum as s/he would have earned or made, if s/he had not sustained the wrong for which s/he is getting compensated. [Robinson v. Harman, (1848) 1 Ex 850, at p. 855 and Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co., (1880) LR 5 AC 25 (HL)]
23. Ordinarily, when the completion of a contract is delayed and the contractor claims that s/he has suffered a loss arising from depletion of her/his income from the job and hence turnover of her/his business, and also for the overheads in the form of workforce expenses which could have been deployed in other contracts, the claims to bear any Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 43/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:59:11 +0530 persuasion before the arbitrator or a court of law, the builder/contractor has to prove that there was other work available that he would have secured if not for the delay, by producing invitations to tender which was declined due to insufficient capacity to undertake other work. The same may also be proven from the books of accounts to demonstrate a drop in turnover and establish that this result is from the particular delay rather than from extraneous causes. If loss of turnover resulting from delay is not established, it is merely a delay in receipt of money, and as such, the builder/contractor is only entitled to interest on the capital employed and not the profit, which should be paid.
42. After going through the abovesaid cases, it stands proved that damages for breach of contract are aimed at to put aggrieved party to similar position in which it ought to be on compliance of contract.
However, remote and expected damages are not allowed and even damages must not be whimsical and absurd resulting in bounty for one party at the expense of the other as held in Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. (supra).
43. In fact, computation of damages should not be disingenuous and should commensurate with the losses sustained by aggrieved party. The party should to be placed in the same situation, with the damages, as if the contract had been performed. The principle is that the sum of money awarded to the party who has suffered the injury, should be the same quantum as she/he would have earned or made, if s/he had not sustained the wrong for which s/he is getting compensated.
44. Admittedly, the plaintiffs herein have sought damages for breach of contract by the defendant no.1 for Rs. 10,00,000/- as under:
Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. DEVENDRA KUMAR 44/46 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:59:16 +0530 Injury loss breach of contract - Rs. 5,00,000/- Mental torture and physical agony- Rs. 2,00,000/-
Infringement of copy right - Rs. 3,00,000/-
Total - Rs. 10,00,000/-
45. However, the plaintiffs have nowhere disclosed in what manner they have calculated losses of Rs. 5,00,000/- qua breach of contract/ agreement.
Nothing has been explained in what manner losses have been calculated and what mental torture/ physical agony has been suffered by them by alleged breach of an agreement, especially when agreement was executed in favor of the plaintiff no.1 which has already dissolved / dead.
46. Another head of damages is infringement of copy right by the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs have not proved any copy right in their favor which has been violated by the defendant/s. Plaintiffs have just relied upon certain color printouts from Facebook/ websites Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/8 but merely by relying of these documents, it could not be proved that the plaintiffs have suffered any losses.
47. Plaintiffs have not filed any statement of account to prove their earning from viewership of songs sung by the defendant no. 1 prior to breach of agreement and thereafter also to determine damages, which is not done. The damages are to be quantified on the basis of different heads like losses in income, mental agony or profit earned by breacher of contract. However, in this case, the plaintiffs have not filed any document to prove as to what was there earning during existence of agreement or how much Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 by DEVENDRA Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. KUMAR 45/46 DEVENDRA Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.28
16:59:22
+0530
decreased after breach of agreement. As such, no losses could be proved on record. Plaintiffs have failed to prove this issue and issue no.1 is decided in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
48. Relief: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their locus standi to file this case. Even they have also failed to prove that the defendant no.1 forged any NOC or that they have suffered losses by alleged breach of agreement Mark-B and have failed to discharge the onus to prove issue no.1 and are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, this suit is hereby dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared. No such order of cost.
49. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by DEVENDRA DEVENDRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.28 16:59:26 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT +0530 ON 28th day of January, 2026 (DEVENDER KUMAR) District Judge (Commercial Court-01) East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS (Comm) No. 134/2021 Rakesh Cine Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Dhadkan & Ors. 46/46