IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 Co.Appeal.No. 28 of 2009 -------------------------- (C.P.No. 39 of 2008 ) APPELLANT/APPLICANT IN C.A.638/2009/2ND RESPONDENT IN C.A.No. 599 of 2009 ----------------------------- JOHNY THOMAS, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, PROPRIETOR, JOHNY SAGARIKA CINEMA SQUARE, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.KKM.SHERIF RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN C.A.No.638 of 2009/APPLICANT AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN C.A.No. 599 OF 2009: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. BOBBY RAJEENDRAN @ BOBBY SEBASTIAN, W/O.RAJEENDRAN.P., SPARTA-I/006, PRESTIGE ACROPOLIS, KORAMANGAL, BANGALORE-560 029. 2. M/S.GOODWAY BUSINESS CORPORATION LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. BY ADV. MR. N. RAGURAJ THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ........................................................................ COMPANY APPEAL No.28 of 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd December, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Raman, J: In the company petition filed. it was alleged that the appellant herein is indebted to the company, which is very much in dispute. However, as an interim measure, the appellant was directed to furnish security as a condition for releasing the film. That being an interim order passed exercising jurisdiction of the Company Court, we would not normally interfere with such matter. 2. It is pointed out by Mr. M. Pathrose Mathai, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant that if at all any amount is payable to the Company by the appellant, that is a matter for the Official Liquidator to proceed with and not for the respondent to initiate any action. Therefore, according to him, even a prima COMPANY APPEAL No.28 of 2009 2 facie case is not established, further an interim order of this nature, will cause undue hardship to the appellant. It is pointed out that the direction to furnish security for such huge amount of Rs.Fifty lakhs imposed as a condition for granting interim stay, will virtually affect the business of the appellant/petitioner. It is also pointed out that in a similar case , viz., in Company Application No.586 of 2009, the learned Company Judge has passed an interim order permitting release of the film and the only condition imposed was to give an undertaking in the form of an affidavit to pay the amount, in case ultimately it is decided against the respondent therein. Therefore, according to the learned Sr. Counsel, for parity of reason, a similar order can be passed. 3. In the facts and circumstances, we direct the appellant to furnish security, including immovable property, if any, for an amount of Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) and give an undertaking in the form of an affidavit for the balance amount. COMPANY APPEAL No.28 of 2009 3 The interim order is modified accordingly. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk