IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.07.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI O.S.A. Nos.80, 125, 127, 131, 132, 133 135, 136/2007 AND O.S.A.No.344/2006 O.S.A.No.80/2007: M/s.7th Channel Communications, by its Proprietor, Manicam Narayanan 121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. : Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. 1.M/s.Roja Combines, rep. By its Proprietor M.Kaja Mydeen, No.4-A, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83. 2.M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises rep. By its Proprietor D.Raj Varma, 1307, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 3.M/s.Sathiyaram Murthy Finance 39/6, thanikachalam Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17. 4.M/s.S.S.Communications, Plot No.8-2-469, road No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034. 5.M.V.R.S.Prasad 6.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories No.58, Arunachalam Road, Chennai-93. : Respondents/Defendants Appeal filed against the fair and decreetal Order dated 3.4.2007 passed by this Court in O.A.No.185/2006 in C.S.No.168/2006 on the file of the Original Side of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For appellant : Mr.Sai Bharath For respondents : Mr.Rugan and Arya for R-1 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for R-4 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-6 Mr.Haribabu, for R-2 Mr.P.L.Narayanan for R-3 & R-5 O.S.A.No.125/2007 C.Venkataraju, Proprietor, Gita Chitra International No.1/7, Masilamani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. : Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Kaja Mydeen, Proprietor, M/s.Roja Combines, No.4-A, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83. 2.D.Raj Varma, Proprietor, M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises, 1307, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 3.Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor, M/s.7th Channel Communications, No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. 4.M/s.S.S.Communications, Plot No.8-2-469, No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500 034 5.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories, No.58, Arunachalam Raod, Chennai 93. : Defendants/Respondent Appeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed by this Court in O.A.No.765/2006 in C.S.No.741/2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant : Mr.PL.Narayanan For respondents : Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-3 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for R-4 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-5 O.S.A.No.127/2007 Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor, M/s.7th Channel Communications, No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. : Appellant/3rd defendant Vs. 1.C.Venkataraju, Proprietor, Gita Chitra International No.1/7, Masilamani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. 2.Kaja Mydeen, Proprietor, M/s.Roja Combines, No.4-A, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83. 3.D.Raj Varma, Proprietor, M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises, 1307, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4.M/s.S.S.Communications, Plot No.8-2-469, No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500 034 5.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories, No.58, Arunachalam Raod, Chennai 93. 6.A.P.Film Chambers of Commerce Dr.D.Rama Naidu, Building Complex, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 : Defendants/Plaintiff 6th respondent/Garnishee & defendants 1,2,4 & 5 & third party https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed by this Court in O.A.No.4060/2006 in C.S.No.741/2006. For Appellant : Mr.Sai Krishnan For respondents : Mr.PL.Narayanan for R-1 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for R-4 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-5 O.S.A.No.131/2007 M/s.Ramakrishnan, Proprietor, M/s.S.S.Communications, Plot No.8-2-469, No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500 034 : Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor, M/s.7th Channel Communications, No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. 2.Kaja Mydeen, Proprietor, M/s.Roja Combines, No.4-A, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83. 3.Raaj Varma, Proprietor, M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises, 1307, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories, No.58, Arunachalam Raod, Chennai 93. : Respondents/Defendants Appeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed by this Court in O.A.No.707/2006 in C.S.No.683/2006. For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar For respondent : Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-1 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-4 O.S.A.No.132/2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M.V.R.S.Prasad 11-A, Thiagarayar Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17. : Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Kaja Mydeen, Proprietor, M/s.Roja Combines, No.4-A, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83. 2.D.Raj Varma, Proprietor, M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises, 1351, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 3.Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor, M/s.7th Channel Communications, No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. 4.Prasad Film Laboratories, No.58, Arunachalam Raod, Chennai 93. 5.S.S.Communications, Plot No.8-2-469, No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500 034 : Respondents/Defendants Appeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed by this Court in O.A.No.721/2006 in C.S.No.691/2006. For Appellant : Mr.PL.Narayanan For Respondent : Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-3 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for R-5 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-4 O.S.A.No.133/2007 M.V.R.S.Prasad 11-A, Thiagarayar Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17. : Appellant/5h defendant Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.M/s.7th Channel Communications, rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.Manicam Narayanan, No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. 2.M/s.Roja Combines, rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.M.Kaja Mydeen, No.4-A, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83. 3.M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises, rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.D.Raj Varma, 1307, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4.Sathiyaram Murthy Finance, 36/6, Thanikachalam Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17. 5.M/s.S.S.Communications, Plot No.8-2-469, No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500 034. 6.Prasad Film Laboratories, No.58, Arunachalam Raod, Chennai 93. : Respondents/Plaintiff/ Defendants Appeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed by this Court in O.A.No.186/2006 in C.S.No.168/2006. For Appellant : Mr.PL.Narayanan For respondents : Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-1 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for R-5 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-6 O.S.A.No.135/2007 M/s.S.S.Communications, Plot No.8-2-469, No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500 034. : Appellant/3rd defendant Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.M/s.7th Channel Communications, rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.Manicam Narayanan, No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. 2.M/s.Roja Combines, rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.M.Kaja Mydeen, No.4-A, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83. 3.M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises, rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.D.Raj Varma, 1307, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4.M/s.Sathiyaram Murthy Finance, 36/6, Thanikachalam Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17. 5.Mr. V.R.S. Prasad, Plot No.8-2-469 Road No.5, Banjara Hills Hyderabad 500 034. 6.Prasad Film Laboratories, No.58, Arunachalam Raod, Chennai 93. : Respondents/Plaintiff Defendants 1,2,4, 5 & 6 Appeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed by this Court in O.A.No.186/2006 in CS.No.168/2006. For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar For respondents : Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-1 Mr.PL.Narayanan for R-5 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-6 O.S.A.No.136/2007 M/s.Ramakrishnan, Proprietor, M/s.S.S.Communications, Plot No.8-2-469, No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500 034 : Appellant/plaintiff https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vs. 1.Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor, M/s.7th Channel Communications, No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. 2.Kaja Mydeen, Proprietor, M/s.Roja Combines, No.4-A, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83. 3.Raaj Varma, Proprietor, M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises, 1307, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories, No.58, Arunachalam Raod, Chennai 93. : Defendants Appeal filed against the order dated 03.04.2007 passed by this Court in O.A.No.708/2006 in C.S.No.683/2006. For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar For respondents : Mr.Sai Krishnan for R-1 Mr.Sarguna Raj for R-4 O.S.A.No.344/2006 M/s.7th Channel Communications, rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.Manicam Narayanan, No.121, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. 1.M/s.S.S.Communications, Plot No.8-2-469, No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, 500 034. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.M/s.Roja Combines, rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.M.Kaja Mydeen, No.4-A, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83. 3.M/s.Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises, rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.D.Raj Varma, 1307, Ground Floor, No.65, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4.M/s.Sathiyaram Murthy Finance, 36/6, Thanikachalam Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17. 5.M.V.R.S.Prasad 11-A, Thiagarayar Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17. 6.M/s.Prasad Film Laboratories, No.58, Arunachalam Raod, Chennai 93. : Respondents/ Defendants Appeal filed against the order dated 23.06.2006 passed by this Court in A.No.3149/2006 in O.A.No.186/2006 in C.S.No.168/2006. For Appellant : Mr.Sai Krishnan For respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for R-1 M/s.Rugan and Arya for R-2 Mr.PL.Narayanan for R3 & R5 J U D G M E N T R.BANUMATHI, J. Telugu Version rights of Tamil Version "Vettaiyadu Vilayadu" is the subject matter of these appeals arising out of common order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.04.2007. 2.Entanglement in litigation by persons who claim to have advanced monies to the first Defendant - M/s.Roja Combines led to the filing of four suits. The Interlocutory Applications were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order. All the appeals arise out of common order and since common points arise for consideration, all the Appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. For convenience, parties are referred in their original rank in C.S.No.168/2006, which is a comprehensive suit. 3.Brief facts in a nutshell are as follows :- The first Defendant - M/s.Roja Combines is the Producer and absolute owner of Tamil Colour Film titled "Vettaiyadu Vilayadu" [hereinafter referred as 'suit film'] starring Kamalhassan and others, directed by Goutham and music by Harris Jeyaraj. The first Defendant appears to have taken finance from all available resources. As the first Defendant was facing financial constraints, the entire production negative rights and sole marketing rights of suit film was transferred in favour of 7th Channel Communications, plaintiff herein, without any restriction or exception of any areas, for a mutually agreed sum of Rs.14,00,000/- and that transfer was by a letter of arrangement dated 24.10.2005. As a consideration for transfer of negative rights, plaintiff has paid a huge sum as indicated in the said Agreement dated 24.10.2005. Plaintiff became Negative Rights Holder and sole possession of marketing rights of the suit film without any encumbrance or restriction. 4.The present dispute relates to Telugu Version of the film "Vettaiyadu Vilayadu". The first Defendant originally assigned the Telugu Version of the suit film in favour of the second Defendant - Proprietor of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Cine Enterprises [for short, SVCE] under an Agreement dated 05.05.2005. In the letter of arrangement between plaintiff and the first Defendant dated 24.10.2005, Telugu Version of the suit film was also transferred to the plaintiff. The first Defendant has assured to take up the responsibility of marketing the Telugu rights for a sum of Rs.2,25,00,000/- onbehalf of the plaintiff Channel. The Agreement in favour of D-2 – SVCE was cancelled by a subsequent Agreement dated 24.11.2005 with the payment of a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- to the second Defendant. Copy rights of Telugu Version of suit film was assigned to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,30,00,000/- by a separate Agreement dated 17.12.2005. 5.Case of the plaintiff is that the first Defendant assigned the right of the Telugu Version of suit film in favour of the plaintiff under an Agreement dated 17.12.2005 for a total consideration of Rs.2,30,00,000/- and therefore, the plaintiff is the absolute Copyright Holder of Telugu Version of the suit film. Plaintiff is said to have arranged for a payment of Rs.29,00,000/- payable by the first Defendant to the second Defendant for cancellation of the prior Agreement. Through 6th Defendant Laboratory, plaintiff has learnt that Defendants 3 to 5 also claim https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said Copyright. Asserting Telugu Version rights and alleging that Defendants are laying claim over the suit film, plaintiff has filed suit for Permanent Injunction for declaration that he is the sole and absolute owner of the copyright pertaining to the Telugu Version of the suit film and also for mandatory injunction to direct 6th Defendant Laboratory to deliver prints of Telugu Version to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also filed applications for Temporary Injunction directing the 6th Defendant Laboratory to deliver the prints of Telugu Version of suit film and to restrain the Defendants from interfering with copyright of the Telugu Version. 6.The Film Producer - first Defendant did not enter appearance. All other Defendants have hotly contested the matter. 7.Upon consideration of the rival contentions and materials on record, the learned Single Judge has held that the plaintiff has established his bonafides in entering an Agreement on 17.12.2005 with the producer - the first Defendant and that the rights of the plaintiff has to be protected and on those findings, granted temporary injunction, allowing O.A.No.186/2006. However, observing that "there are other persons who claim to have advanced monies to the producer and got the copyrights assigned in their favour", the learned Single Judge declined interim mandatory injunction and dismissed application O.A.No.185/ 2006. As against dismissal of mandatory injunction, plaintiff has filed O.S.A.No.80/2007. As against grant of Interim Injunction in O.A.No.186/2006, D-4 and D-5 have filed O.S.A.No.135/2007 and O.S.A.No.133/2007. 8.Case of the second Defendant [SVCE] in nutshell as apparent from counter filed for the first time in appeal, is as follows :- The first Defendant had entered into an Agreement with him on 05.05.2005, assigning all Telugu Dubbing Rights/ remaking rights with absolute rights over Telugu Version of the said movie for exhibition and distribution all over the world, excepting Tamil Nadu and Kerala States, for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, out of which, the second Defendant paid an advance to the first Defendant an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- at the time of signing the Agreement. Further case of the second Defendant is that it was accepted that he would directly pay the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to M/s.Sathiya Rengiah [father of D-5] and to Director – Goutham Menon, an amount of Rs.80,000/- on behalf of the first Defendant. After assigning the Telugu Version rights to D-2, the first Defendant did not have any further rights and D-2 had become absolute owner of the Telugu version of the suit film. Even as per the Cancellation Agreement, D-1 ought to have paid an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- and further amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. D-2 ought to have organized a meeting on 29.11.2005 between D-1 and D-4, to whom he had sold away Overseas, Satellite, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Video, Cable and Television Rights. D-2 organised a meeting with D-4 but D-1 was unable to buy back rights Satellite and overseas rights over the Telugu Version of the said movie that was sold to D-4 under a valid Agreement. D-1 was also unable to obtain and hand over letters of confirmation from D-6, releasing D-2 from all liabilities on account of the said movie. Owing to the above two factors, Cancellation Agreement dated 24.11.2005 could not have been given effect to and is deemed to be cancelled. D-2 has incurred huge expenditure on account of Telugu Version of the said movie and as against the second Defendant, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 9.The second Defendant had not filed counter statement in the trial Court. Pointing out that though D-2 has signed Cancellation Agreement, D-2 has not only turned volte face against the Cancellation Agreement but had also created documents in favour of plaintiff in C.S.No.741/2006, the learned Single Judge has held that the validity of the Cancellation Agreement dated 24.11.2005 vis-a-vis the other documents could be gone into only at the time of trial when the parties adduce evidence. 10. Case of D-4 – S.S. Communications [plaintiff in C.S.No.683/ 2006] :- According to D-4, he has entered into an Agreement with D-2 - SVCE on 09.05.2007 wherein D-2 has transferred the Telugu Version of the film’s Satellite, Video, Cable, Doordarshan, DTH, Internet, VCD, DVD and electronic media rights [for brevity, referred as Satellite rights] in respect of Telugu Cinema “Mahadheera” [Tamil Version of “Vettayadu Vilayadu”]. As per clause 5 of the said Agreement, D-4 will have rights for a period of thirty years on the satellite rights and D-4 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.22,50,000/-. Out of the consideration, D-4 has paid a sum of Rs.12,57,000/- for the said film “Mahadeera”. D-4 has also entered into an Overseas Agreement with D-2 for the said film “Mahadeera” by Agreement dated 23.12.2005, wherein D-2 has transferred the overseas rights to D-4 and the same is subsisting. Without the knowledge of D-4, D-2 had entered into Cancellation Agreement with the plaintiff and the same is binding on D-4. 11.Further case of D-4 is that it has spent huge amount in advertising and promotion of Telugu Version of the film. The appellant is still the exclusive owner of the satellite rights and overseas rights of suit film and D-4 prays for Temporary Injunction restraining the plaintiff from alienating the satellite rights and overseas rights. According to D-4, plaintiff knew fully well that there was an existing assignment for the Telugu Version and therefore, the question of 7th Channel having any rights over the Telugu Version cannot be permitted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. Impugned findings in respect of D-4's claim:- The learned Single Judge held that D-4 is only an agreement holder from the original assignee – SVCE and therefore D-4 has to rise or fall only on the strength of the Original Agreement dated 05.05.2005 between the Producer and D-2. The learned Judge has further observed that Agreement dated 09.05.2005 does not contain a clause fixing consideration for the Agreement and the said Agreement without consideration is void. In so far as the Agreement dated 23.12.2005 relating to overseas rights, the learned Judge has held that it is subsequent in point of time to the Cancellation Agreement dated 24.11.2005 and hence doubted its validity. On those findings, the learned Single Judge dismissed the applications O.A.Nos.707/2006 and 708/2006, which are challenged in O.S.A.Nos.131/2007 and 136/2007. 13. Case of D-5/plaintiff in C.S.No.691 of 2006 is as follows :- D-5 claims to have originally entered into an Agreement dated 28.04.2004 with D-1 for lease-hold right of Tamil feature film starring Kamalhassan directed by Goutham Menon on outright basis for the entire areas of North Arcot, South Arcot and Chengalpat, popularly known in the film industry as "N.S.C. Area" for a consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-, within a month of the aforesaid Agreement. Another Agreement dated 18.05.2004 is said to have been entered into between D-5 and D-1, assigning dubbing and re-making of Tamil feature film titled "SIPPAI", starring Kamalhassan and others, directed by Goutham Menon and music scored by Harris Jeyaraj for a consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-. 14.Further case of D-5 is that D-2 on learning from plaintiff that Telugu Dubbed Version of the film stands assigned to D-5, D-2 had approached for negotiation for relinquishing the assignment made in favour of D-5 upon receipt of Rs.One crore. D-2 has stated that he has to fund the producer to the tune of Rs.1.25 crores for completing the production and that in respect of Rs.One crore payable to D-5, he would do so at the time of release of the said film in Telugu. The first defendant had issued a letter on 06.05.2005 regarding the Agreement to pay Rs.One Crore through D-2 directly to D-5 prior to the release of the film. By letter dated 06.10.2005, D-2 had confirmed the existence of the Contingent Contract i.e. assignment of suit film continuing in the name of D- 5 until payment of Rs.One crore. Acting upon the said letter dated 06.10.2005, the sixth defendant lab had issued Lab Confirmation Letter dated 07.11.2005. The said lab letter is in favour of D-5 and one Sathyarama Murthy [who is not a party to any of the proceeding]. According to D-5, copyright of the suit film continues to vest in D-5. The Cancellation Agreement between D-1 and D-2 would not affect D-5’s copyright in Telugu Version of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suit film. Further case of D-5 is that the lab letter is in favour of D-5 and is still operative and the lab cannot release prints to the plaintiff until the due amount is paid to D-5. 15.D-5 filed C.S.No.691/2006 for declaration that he is the absolute copyright owner of the Telugu Version of the suit film and also for Permanent Injunction. 16. Impugned findings in respect of D-5's claim :- Insofar as D-5's claim is concerned, the learned Single Judge has held that though both the Agreements indicate payment of consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively, consideration appears to be on adjustment towards the amount payable by the producer in respect of the earlier production titled "JANA" and the pleadings in the plaint run contrary to the recitals contained in both Agreements. Insofar as the lab letter produced by D-5 is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the lab letter is not in response to the letter from D-1 but is only in response to the letter of the first Assignee – D-2. It was further held that validity of the claim of D-5 on the basis of lab letter dated 17.11.2005 has to be tested in the light of other lab letter dated 07.01.2006 filed by D-4 in C.S.No.683/2006 and on those findings, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application O.A.No.721/2006, which is challenged in O.S.A.No.132/2007. 17. Case of Gita Chitra International [GCI] - Plaintiff in C.S.No.741/2006 :- Case of GCI is based upon payment of Rs.15,00,000/- allegedly made by him to D-2 - SVCE. Suit C.S.No.741/2006 was filed for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest totalling to Rs.20,10,000/-. In O.A.No. 765/2006, GCI prayed for injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with copyrights of Telugu Version version of the film. In A.No.4060/2006, GCI prayed for restraining the Garnishee viz., Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce from releasing or parting with an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- deposited with them. 18. Findings in respect of GCI's Claim :- Observing that GCI's claim is only a money claim, O.A.No.765/2006 was dismissed. A.No.4060/2006 was disposed of with direction to the Garnishee - Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce to deposit an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- in any one of the Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. Aggrieved against such direction in A.No.4060/2006, GCI has filed O.S.A.No.125/2007. 19. Contentions of parties :- The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has mainly contended that when the learned Single Judge has held that the plaintiff has proved the prima facie case, the Court ought to have granted mandatory injunction since the plaintiff has advanced huge amount towards Telugu Version. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further argued that when the second Defendant has consciously entered into the Cancellation Agreement, suppressing the same, the second Defendant has moved Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce, which was not taken note of by the learned Single Judge. It was further submitted that Defendants are wantonly blocking the release of the film by making false claims over the copyrights on the strength of certain make-believe documents. It was urged that if the film is not released and if kept idle, the film would loose its marketing potential and the plaintiff would be subjected to irreparable loss and hardship. 20.In the trial court though the 2nd defendant has not explained his stand, in this appeal, the 2nd defendant has filed his counter affidavit and contested the appeals. The second Defendant though he has not filed counter affidavit in the trial Court, has filed counter affidavit and contested the appeals. The contention of the second Defendant is that he has incurred huge expenditure onbehalf of the Telugu Version of the suit film and that the Cancellation Agreement dated 24.11.2005 could not have been given effect to. Further contention of D-2 is that he was incurring huge expenditure on account of the Telugu Version and as per the Agreement between D-1 and D-2, both Tamil Version, under the title “Vettayadu Vilayadu” and Telugu Version, under the Title “Mahadheera”, are to be released simultaneously around the first week of April 2006. It is the further case of D-2 that he has spent huge sums on the project to the tune of about Rs.59,00,000/-. The second Defendant has alleged collusion between plaintiff and the first Defendant. 21.Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the second Defendant has assigned the Satellite, Video, Cable and Doordarshan and other T.V. and Electronic Media and overseas rights in respect of the Telugu Version "Mahadeera", which was acted upon on the strength of the Agreement dated 05.05.2005 and 23.12.2005 and that the fourth Defendant is the exclusive owner of the said rights and is also entitled to exploit the same. The learned Senior Counsel further urged that D-4 is still the exclusive owner of the satellite rights of the Telugu Version and he has already spent huge amount on advertising and on promotion of Telugu Version of the film. 22.Drawing our attention to various correspondence, the learned Counsel for the 5th Defendant, Mr.P.L.Narayanan, has submitted that the second Defendant, who is the Telugu Producer had issued letter in favour of the 5th Defendant confirming the payment of Rs.1,00,00,000/- at the time of release of Telugu Version of the suit film. The learned Counsel further submitted that relinquishment of the copyright of Telugu Dubbed Version of the suit film will take into effect only upon payment of consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the 5th respondent and till https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such time, copyright of the suit film continues to be with the 5th Defendant. It was further urged that to overcome this difficulty, the producer - 1st Defendant had colluded with the plaintiff in filing the suit C.S.No.168/2006. The learned counsel further urged that the plaintiff cannot by-pass the pre-existing commitments of D-1 since the plaintiff has only stepped into the shoes of D-1. It was further urged that D-2 has entered into a Contingent Contract on 05.05.2005 subject to the payment of