Madras High Court

Bosco Prabu vs P.S.Mithran on 30 June, 2021

                                                                              C.S.No.724 of 2019 &
                                                                                  A.No.276 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  Dated: 30.06.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

                                                  C.S.No.724 of 2019
                                                          &
                                                   A.No.276 of 2020
                     Bosco Prabu
                     S/o.Anthony
                     Flat No.117, 2nd Floor
                     Iniya Illam Lakshmi Enclave
                     14th Street, Kubera Nagar Extension
                     Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091                              ... Plaintiff

                                                         Vs.

                     1. P.S.Mithran

                     2. Mr.Kottapadi Jayaram
                        Proprietor of KJR Studios
                        No.5, 4th Floor, Rapid Skyline Apartment
                        8/4, Sreekrishnapuram Street, Royapettah
                        Chennai – 600 014

                     3. South Indian Film Writers Association
                        Rep. by its President Shri K.Bhagyaraj
                        L-33, Flat – 1, 2nd Floor, LIG
                        Bharathidasan Colony, K.K.Nagar
                        Chennai – 600 078                               .. Defendants

                               This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order IV Rule 1 of Original
                     Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure

                     1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                   C.S.No.724 of 2019 &
                                                                                       A.No.276 of 2020

                     and Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and under Section 62 of the Copyright
                     Act seeking following reliefs
                               a) to grant a declaration in favour of the plaintiff that the script
                     which is used by the Defendants 1 and 2 in making the infringed film
                     'HERO', absolutely belongs to the Plaintiff
                               b) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and
                     2 by themselves, itself or through its men, servant, agents or any person
                     claiming through or under the Defendants 1 and 2 in any manner from
                     releasing and / or screening or in any print media of the infringed film
                     titled 'HERO' in any form or style on 20th December 2019 or any other
                     date;
                               c) to appoint advocate commissioner or a committee of story writer
                     (s) or experts from the film industry to quantify the copying / stealing
                     done by the Defendants in the infrined film from the copyrighted script
                     of the Plaintiff 'VETRI' and to file a detailed report before the Hon'ble
                     Court to determine the infringement of Plaintiff's copyrighted script by
                     the Defendants 1 and 2 titled 'HERO';
                               d) to direct all the Defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable
                     to pay initial compensation of Rs.1,00,01,000/- (Rupees One Crore and
                     One Thousand Only) to the plaintiff as advance and further
                     compensation and damages as determined by the Hon'ble Court,
                               e) to direct all the defendants to pay the cost of the suit and other
                     expense relating to the suit.
                                     For Plaintiff     : Mr.M.Sunil Kumar

                                     For Defendants    : Mr.T.Mohan

                     2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                  C.S.No.724 of 2019 &
                                                                                      A.No.276 of 2020

                                                        for Ms. Nivedita S.Menon
                                                        for 1st Defendant
                                                        Mr.S.Karthikei Balan for 2nd defendant
                                                        Mr.S.Arvindh Raj
                                                        for Ms.A.Vinupradha for 3rd defendant

                                                      JUDGMENT

Mr.M.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for sole plaintiff,

Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.Nivedita S

Mohan, counsel on record for first defendant, Mr.S.Karthikei Balan,

learned counsel on record for second defendant and Mr.S.Arvindh Raj,

learned counsel representing Ms.Vinu Pradha, counsel on record for third

defendant are before this Virtual Court.

2. Captioned suit and application therein have been listed today

under the caption 'FOR WITHDRAWAL' at the instance of plaintiff who

has filed an affidavit and memo, both dated 22.06.2021.

3. Adverting to paragraph 2 of the aforementioned affidavit,

learned counsel for first defendant submitted that the settlement referred

to therein is between the plaintiff and second defendant.

4.Responding to this, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that

the amicable out of Court settlement arrived at is between the plaintiff

and second defendant, however the plaintiff has no claim whatsoever

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.724 of 2019 & A.No.276 of 2020

against all the three defendants post such settlement with the second

defendant. This submission is recorded.

5. Be that as it may, adverting to Paragraphs 2 and 5 of earlier

proceedings dated 08.04.2021, all the aforementioned learned counsel

before this Court submitted that four intra-court appeals i.e.,

O.S.A.Nos.146 to 149 of 2020 become infructuous on withdrawal of the

captioned suit and all the aforementioned counsel submitted in unison in

one voice that they will report before Hon'ble Division Bench that the

aforementioned Original Side Appeals have become infructuous and give

a closure to all the four intra-court appeals. This submission is recorded.

6. In the aforementioned affidavit and memo, plaintiff has sought

refund of Court fee. This takes us to Section 69-A of 'The Tamil Nadu

Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955' (hereinafter 'TN Court Fees

Act' for brevity and convenience) as amended. In the light of the

submissions made before this Court, it is clear that the lis has been

settled out of Court without resorting to any one of the modes

adumbrated in Section 89 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC'

for brevity). Notwithstanding this, plaintiff is entitled to full refund of

Court fee in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.724 of 2019 & A.No.276 of 2020

of The High Court of Judicature at Madras Vs. M.C.Subramaniam &

Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 109. Relevant paragraphs in

M.C.Subramaniam's case are paragraphs 26 and 27 and the same read as

follows:

'26. Thus, even though a strict construction of the terms of Section 89, CPC and 69-A of the 1955 Act may not encompass such private negotiations and settlements between the parties, we emphasize that the participants in such settlements will be entitled to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under Section 89, CPC. Indeed, we find it puzzling that the Petitioner should be so vehemently opposed to granting such benefit. Though the Registry/State Government will be losing a one-time court fee in the short term, they will be saved the expense and opportunity cost of managing an endless cycle of litigation in the long term. It is therefore in their own interest to allow the Respondent No. 1's claim.

27. Thus, in our view, the High Court was correct in holding that Section 89 of the CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act be interpreted liberally. In view of this broad purposive construction, we affirm the High Court's conclusion, and hold that Section 89 of CPC shall cover, and the benefit of Section 69-A of the 1955 Act shall also extend

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.724 of 2019 & A.No.276 of 2020

to, all methods of out-of-court dispute settlement between parties that the Court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at. This would, thus, cover the present controversy, wherein a private settlement was arrived at, and a memo to withdraw the appeal was filed before the High Court. In such a case as well, the appellant, i.e., Respondent No. 1 herein would be entitled to refund of court fee.'

(underlining made by this Court for ease of reference)

7. Therefore, there is no difficulty in acceding to the prayer of the

plaintiff for refund of full Court fee paid subject to standard statutory

deductions, if any. Refund of Court fee to the plaintiff by the Registry

shall be by way of an instrument drawn in favour of the plaintiff. To be

noted, this is as requested by learned counsel for plaintiff who submits

that he will forthwith commence and comply with procedure formalities

in this regard i.e., refund of court fees. This refund process shall be

completed expeditiously by the Registry and in any case within eight

weeks from today i.e., on or before 25.08.2021.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.724 of 2019 & A.No.276 of 2020

Captioned suit, captioned application and all other applications (if