P A Art Productions v. Evergreen Media P Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY A.No.566 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.54 of 2024 P.A. Art Productions, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, P.AR.Subramanian, No.24, Bhagirathi Ammal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

... Applicant/4th defendant vs.

1. M/s.Evergreen Media P. Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.J.Anto Joel, No.11/19, Vengeeswarar Nagar First Main Road, Vadapalani, Chennai - 600 026.

... 1st Respondent/Plaintiff

2. M/s. O.K.Films, Represented by its Proprietrix, Smt. K.Uma Rani.

3. M/s. Ho Ho Films, Represented by its Proprietrix, Smt. K. Uma Rani.

4.M/s.Ding Dong Bell Films, Represented by its Proprietrix, Smt. K. Uma Rani.

1/7

(Respondents 2 to 4 having office at No. 829, Anna Salai, Airlines buildings, Chennai-600 002.

5. John Doe/s @ Ashok Kumar/s

6. M/s. AP International, Represented by its Partner, Mr.Sanjay A Wadhwa, Old No.80, New No.42, New Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.

(the 6th defendant impleaded as per order dated 02.08.2024 in A.No.2992 of 2024)

7. M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation, Represented by its Partner, Mr.Ghanshyam Hemdev, No.5/3, Muktha Garden, Spurtank Road, Chetpet, Chennai-600 031.

(the 7th defendant impleaded as per order dated 02.08.2024 in A.No.2994 of 2024)

8. HICE TELEMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Represented by is Authorised Signatory, Sivayogen AP, 33, 1st floor, Tiny Sector, Thiru-vi-ka Industrial, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. (the 8th defendant impleaded as per order dated 02.08.2024 in A.No.3490 of 2024)

9. T.J. Ashok (the 9th defendant impleaded as per order dated 08.01.2025 in A.No.3704 of 2024) .. Respondents 2 to 9/Defendants 1 to 3, 5 to 9 2/7

Prayer:Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules Read With Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to reject the plaint in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.54 of 2024. For Applicant/4th Defendant : Mr.S.Karthikei Balan For R1/Plaintiff : Mr.K.Ravi, Senior Advocate for M/s.Rugan & Arya For R6/D6 : Mr.R.Sathishkumar For R7/D7 : Mr.C.Ramesh For R8/D8 : Mr.T.R.Sundaram For R9/D9 : Mr.M.V.Swaroop

ORDER

By this application, the 4th defendant seeks rejection of the plaint. The application is filed on the ground that the plaintiff did not exhaust pre-institution mediation as mandated by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (the Commercial Courts Act).

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/4th defendant submits that the plaint does not contain any averment with regard to the plaintiff seeking 3/7

urgent interim relief. In fact, he contends that even the affidavit in support of Original Application No.173 of 2024 does not contain such averment. By referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 1, learned counsel contends that the plaint is liable to be rejected in such a situation.

3. The plaint was signed on or about 12.02.2024 and admitted on 01.03.2024. The admitted position is that Original Application No.173 of 2024 was filed along with the plaint. In the affidavit in support of such application, the plaintiff has asserted that infringement of the plaintiff's copyright over 320 movies is continuing, and that this causes irreparable hardship to the plaintiff. On that basis, the plaintiff prayed for ad interim relief.

4. By prima facie accepting that the plaintiff is entitled to ad interim relief, this Court, by order dated 05.03.2024, granted ex parte ad interim relief to the plaintiff.

4/7

5. Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, pre-institution mediation is mandatory unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. The present suit relates to alleged infringement of intellectual property rights, wherein every act of infringement constitutes a fresh cause of action. By alleging such infringement, the plaintiff requested for and was granted ad interim relief on ex parte basis.

6. In Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D.Keerthi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 906, the Supreme Court examined as to whether the plaintiff can unilaterally determine whether urgent interim relief is contemplated by the suit. While concluding that the plaintiff cannot unilaterally make such determination and that the Court plays a role in deciding whether the suit contemplates any urgent interim relief, it was clarified that the Court should examine whether the interim application was lodged solely to circumvent the requirement of Section 12A.

7. In the factual context outlined above, this Court concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to ad interim relief on ex parte basis. Therefore, I am unable to conclude that the interim application was lodged solely to 5/7

circumvent the requirement of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

8. Hence, the application to reject the plaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.

10.03.2025 (1/2) Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No kj 6/7

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

Kj A.No.566 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.54 of 2024 10.03.2025 (1/2) 7/7