← Library
Madras High CourtOA/47/2017dismissed

Ramu Chellappa v. Rv Films

2017-01-19Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM O.A.No.47 of 2017 In the matter of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and In the matter of Dispute between RV Films and Ramu Chellappa Film Director Agreement Dated 16.02.2015 Ramu Chellappa, Aged about 32 Years, Residing at 63, Lalbagathur Sastri Street, Kovil medu, Coimbatore-641025. ...Applicant vs 1.RV Films, Proprietor, Mr.Rajesh Vadivel, No.84,S.Q.SIDCO, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

2.EROS International,(South) Rep by,Vice President, Sagar Sadhwani, Gee Gee Universal Building, 2nd Floor, Mcnichols Road, Chetpet(Near Metha Hospital) Chennai-31.

... Respondents Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 1 and 2nd Respondents or their men or their agents or anybody from releasing the Tamil Movie with title 'Engitta Modhathey'.

This Original Petition coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order: Heard Mr.G.Murugendran, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr.R.Premkumar for M/s.King and Partridge for the learned Counsel for the Caveator.

2.This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the applicant seeks for an order of interim injunction to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from releasing the Tamil Movie with title ''Engitta Modhathey''.

3.The learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that there was an agreement dated 16.02.2015 between the applicant, who is the Director of the Feature Film and the 1st respondent, the producer, under which the Director had exclusive right to determine as to what are the scenes which have to be shown in the film and after the completion of the film, it has submitted for Certification before the Central Board of Film Certification (hereinafter referred to as, 'CBFC'). The CBFC, initially, on viewing the film certified it under ''U A'' Category. Thereafter, the petitioner as the Director of the movie deleted certain scenes and resubmitted the movie for Certification and a Certificate dated 31.05.2016 was issued classifying the said movie under ''U'' category and the duration of the movie is 128 minutes and 3 seconds.

4.The grievance of the applicant is that without his knowledge, the producer, namely, the 1st respondent has unilaterally effected some more change towards the total length of the movie and resubmitted the same to the CBFC for fresh certification and being aggrieved by such an action, the applicant approached this Court and filed

W.P.No.29379/2016 praying for a direction, not to re-censor the Tamil Movie ''Engitta Modhathey'' at the instance of the respondents therein without the knowledge of the petitioner. In the said writ petition, more or less, an identical contention which was raised in this application was contended before the writ court by placing reliance of Clause 8.15 of the agreement wherein the petitioner claimed to have a veto of the creative decision which rests with him.

5.The Court after having considered the case of the parties, by order dated 04.11.2016 disposed of the writ petition and while doing so, left it open to the parties to invoke the arbitration clause as per the agreement dated 16.02.2015 entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein. It appears that the arbitration clause is yet to be invoked till date by any of the parties and the petitioner has come forward with this application seeking for a grant of interim injunction from releasing the movie.

6.The question would be as to whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. The object of Section 9 of the Act is to ensure that the award passed by an Arbitrator which may be subsequent should not be reduced into a paper award. 7.On perusal of the order in W.P.No.29379 of 2016 dated 04.11.2016, it is seen that the court has adjudicated the case of the petitioner and the rights which are conferred to him in the agreement and has rendered a finding with regard to the right of the purchaser as stipulated in Clause 8.15 of the agreement. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said order which read as follows:

''11. At this juncture, it is relevant to

extract below clause 8.13 of the agreement:- "8.13 R.V.FILMS and the Director shall at all times, be entitled to determine the final cut of the Film, on mutual agreement. In the event of disagreement between the Director and R.V.FILMS, the Director acknowledges that the veto of the creative decision rests with him". A perusal of clause 8.13 reveals that the 2nd respondent and the petitioner shall be entitled to determine the final cut of the film on mutual agreement and in the event of disagreement between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the petitioner also acknowledges that the veto of the creative decision rests with him. Though clause 8.13 has given the right to the Director, the final say has been made clear in clause 8.15, wherein, the 2nd respondent has got the absolute right. Moreover, the petitioner's right in the film has already got transferred.

12. Clause 5.5 and clause 8.5 of the agreement speak about the absolute right of the 2nd respondent. Clause 8.5 of the agreement is extracted hereunder:- " 8.5 Shall not during the Production period and/or at any time sell, transfer, mortgage, or create any lien, charge or encumbrance on the said Film or any material relating thereto and will not enter into any agreement in respect of the Distribution Rights, for any territory to or in favour of any party, and shall at the end of the Production Period of the said Film deliver to R.V.FILMS all material whatsoever prepared by him or in his possession in connection with the said Film free from all lien, charge or encumbrance. The Director acknowledges and confirms that the

said Film and the materials thereof are the exclusive property of R.V.FILMS together with all copyrights thereunder and except for the remuneration herein he has no right, title or interest thereto".

8.The contention advanced before this Court is by relying upon clause 8.13 of the agreement. This issue was considered by the writ court and the writ court has rendered a finding after referring to clause 8.15 of the agreement and held that Clause 5.5 and 8.5 of the agreement confer absolute right on the 1st respondent herein, namely, the producer of the film. That apart, paragraph 14 of the order in the writ petition, the following observations have been made:

''14. As far as the Rule 22 of the Rules is concerned, once the film is produced for certification, it is the duty of the Censor Board to view the movie and give certification. In this case, the film was already viewed and "U" certificate was given. After showing the movie to the Distributors, as per the inputs given by the Distributors, the duration of the movie has been reduced so as to keep the tempo of the movie. Certain deletions are said to have been made in order to see that the interest of the viewers is maintained throughout the movie.

The 2nd respondent is not a stranger and he is the producer of the movie, who has spent crores of rupees for producing the film. No doubt, the petitioner has also got a right, because of his creativity. At the same time, once he has passed on the creativity to the 2nd respondent, it is the property of the 2nd respondent and no prudent person will spoil the movie before it is released. Therefore, the points which have been

highlighted by the petitioner cannot be accepted. If any additions have been made, the film has to be given to the Censor Board under Rule 33 only to view the altered portion alone. Further, a perusal of the various clauses of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent which have been extracted above, would make it very clear that the 2nd respondent has got the copy right and all rights of the movie and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right to question the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to follow the process as contemplated under Rule 33 of the Rules. It is needless to mention that it is always open to the parties to invoke arbitration clause as per the agreement dated 16.02.2015 entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.''

9.Thus, in the light of the above finding, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

sd/.T.S.S.J 19.01.2017 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2017.

MD/07.03.2017 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.