M/S. AVTAR SINGH & CO. PVT. LTD. versus M/S. S.S. ENTERPRISES AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 11-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

i 
: 
M/S. AVTAR SINGH & CO. PVT. LTD. 
v. 
MIS. S.S. ENTERPRISES AND ORS. 
MARCH 11, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Suit-Transfer petition for-Agreement for distribution of film-Sub-
sequent agreement by respondent with appellant-Suits in respect of agree-
ment-First suit at Bombay Civil Coult alleging cancellation of agreement and 
A 
B 
• 
seeking injunction-Second suit at Madras High Coult seeking declaration of C 
right under the latter agreement-lnjunction granted confirmed by Division 
Bench-Appeal pending in this Coult-Third suit by respondent on original 
side of Bombay High Coult subsequent to injunction granted by Madras High 
Court-Contempt proceedings pending before Bombay High Coult pursuant 
to order of injunction-Held instead of transfening the Bombay suit to Madras 
the proceedings in Bombay Coult stayed till suit before original side of Madras D 
High Coult is disposed-Contempt pending before High Coult to be dealt with 
in accordance with law-Direction to Madras High Coult to dispose of the 
-~ 
suit expeditiously-Status quo directed pending disposal of SLP confined to 
the rights of petitioner pursuant to subsequent agreement. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (C) No. 658 
of 1995. 
(Under Article 139A(l)/(2) of the Constitution oflndia.) 
E 
D.A. Dave, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the Petitioner. 
F 
F.S. Nariman, M. Karanjawala, Gaurab Banerjee, M.L. Ranjeet, Ms. 
Ruby Abuja and R.N. Karanjawala for the Respondents. 
3. 
Ashok M. Sarogi and Ms. S. Usha Reddy, for the Respondent No. 
Bhimrao Naik and Revathy Raghavan for Impleading party. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
203 
G 
H 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
In this case, admittedly, there was an agreement dated February 28, 
1985 which M/s. S.S. Enterprises, a partnership firm had with R. 
Venketraman for the distribution of film 'Aag Ka Dariya'. It would appear 
'> 
that subsequently there was an agreement dated 7.10.1993 in favour of the 
petitioner M/s. Avtar Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the same film. In 
B respect of the distribution of the said film now three suits are pending. The 
first suit was filed by R. Venkatraman in the City Civil Court at Bombay 
wherein he has claimed that the agreement dated January 28, 1985 was 
cancelled and has sought an injunction against M/s. S.S. Enterprises. The 
second suit, viz., Suit No. 1136/95 was filed by the petitioner on the Original 
Side of the High Court of Madras for declaration of his rights under the 
C later agreement and also for an ad-interim injunction which was granted. 
• 
That interim injunction which was confirmed by the Single Judge and was 
upheld by the Division Bench on appeal which is the subject matter of SLP 
(C) Nos. 27695-96/95 pending in this Court. Therefore, we need not go into 
the correctness or otherwise of the injunction granted in that behalf. The 
D third suit was filed by the respondent- S.S. Enterprises, viz., Suit No. 
3793/95 on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court subsequet to the 
order of the injunction granted by the learned Single Judge of the Madras 
High Court. The respondent had an ad-interim injunction in that suit. We 
are informed that contempt proceedings are pending pursuant to the order 
1 
of injunction granted by the learned Single Judge. In this behalf also, we 
E need go into that controversy as well and the parties are at liberty to have 
the matter disposed of by the learned Single Judge in those contempt 
proceedings. 
The only question is : whether the suit pending in the Bombay High 
F 
Court requires to be transferred to the Original Side of the High Court of 
Madras to be tried alongwith the Suit No. 1136 of 1995 which is a com-
-., 
prehensive suit and first in point of time ? Under those circumstances, we 
think that instead of transferring the Bombay suit to the Madras High 
Court the further proceedings in Bombay suit should stand stayed till the 
suit before the Original Side of the Madras High Court is disposed of. 
G This order will not have any effect on the disposal of the contempt 
proceedings pending before the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High 
Court which would be dealt with in accordance with law. 
The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court is requested to 
H dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferebly within 6 months 
A VT AR SINGH AND CO. PVT. LTD. v. S.S. ENTE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.