Madras High Court
S.Karthikeyan vs S.N.Rajarajan on 8 June, 2022
C.S.No.299 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 08.06.2022
CORAM
THE HON`BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.S.No.299 of 2017
S.Karthikeyan .. Plaintiff
vs.
S.N.Rajarajan .. Defendant
Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read
with Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C., praying for the following Judgment and
Decree against the defendant.
a) To direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.1,48,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Forty Eight Lakhs only) with
further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.1,11,10,000/- from the
date of plaint till the date of realisation.
b) Directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit;
c) to grant such other relief or reliefs;
For Plaintiff : Mr.P.Raja
For Defendant : Mr.Karthik Ganesh
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The present suit is filed by plaintiff for recovery of money from the
defendant.
2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the plaintiff in the plaint
are as follows:
(i) The plaintiff is an advocate and the defendant is in the field of
motion picture production. They are known to each other for a long time
and their acquaintance developed into a good bond between each other.
Upon the close contact with the defendant, having confidence of
defendant's ability to do business in the field of motion picture production,
the plaintiff from and out of his sources, helped the defendant with hand
loan. Out of the said loan extended to him, the defendant ventured to
release the movie ' Savale Samalee' and the said movie went into a total
flop. The plaintiff knowing well that the defendant might not be able to
repay the loan had kept quiet.
(ii) During the beginning of the year 2016, the defendant was in talk
with the production house of the movie 'Bahubali 2'. Since the defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
was negotiating for a big budget movie and he was investing the proceeds
from the other movie ventures for the said movie, the plaintiff was not in a
hurry to pressurize the defendant. The plaintiff had great faith in the
defendant and extended further financial support for him securing the rights
of the said movie. The plaintiff had great faith in the defendant and
extended further financial support for securing the rights of the said movie.
The plaintiff had paid the defendant in the following manner as per
defendant's request:-
(i) 29.04.2014 Rs.42,00,000/- through Cheque No.98169
(ii) 10.06.2014 Rs.9,10,000/- through Cheque No.101858
(iii) 12.06.2014 Rs.8,00,000/- through Cheque No.101859
(iv) 06.08.2015 Rs.35,00,000/- through cash
(v) 07.07.2016 Rs.5,00,000/- through Cash
(vi) 05.08.2016 Rs.7,00,000/- through Cash
(vii) 10.08.2016 Rs.5,00,000/- through ash
and in total, a sum of Rs.1,11,10,000.00
(iii) The defendant promised the plaintiff that he would be realising
the investments upon selling the distribution rights after audio release
function and accordingly, he promised to clear the plaintiff's dues with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The plaintiff was entitled to much
higher interest, as promised by the defendant, due to the status of the
defendant at present and due to his success in business, the plaintiff and
the defendant settled the accounts after a prolonged negotiations over
phone and in person. The interest calculation at the rate of 18% per
annum and after adjusting the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by the
defendant towards interest it was struck at Rs.1,48,44,500/- and rounded
off to the value of Rs.1,48,00,000/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the defendant issued a cheque on 31.03.2017 at his office
bearing no.084211 drawn on ICICI Bank, T.Nagar in favour of the plaintiff
and when the same was presented on the instructions of the defendant, it
was returned with an endorsement 'Account Closed'.
(iv) Hence the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 13.04.2017
through his counsel for the offences committed by the defendant under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of IPC., In the
said legal notice, the plaintiff further called upon the defendant to pay him a
sum of Rs.1,48,00,000/- forthwith. Further, the plaintiff apprehends that the
defendant who is releasing number of films, will not honour his
commitment, hence the present suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant
is a film producer and the defendant is known to the plaintiff and the
plaintiff paid him a total sum of Rs.1,11,10,000/- between 29.04.2014 and
10.08.2016 and thereafter, upon adding the interest and deducting the
amount already given by the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,48,00,000/- was arrived
at to be paid by the defendant. In the meantime, the defendant has issued
a cheque for Rs.1,48,00,000/- to the plaintiff, which upon presentation was
dishonoured as 'account closed'. Hence the plaintiff pleaded to grant the
relief prayed in the suit.
4. On the other side, though sufficient opportunity was granted to the
defendant for representing the written statement, which was returned on
10.09.2018, the same was not represented. Hence the case was listed
under the caption 'undefended board', however, the defendant failed to file
the written statement, therefore, the defendant was set exparte on
25.03.2021 and the matter was posted before the learned Master for
recording exparte evidence. The plaintiff, namely, S.Karthikeyan has filed
the proof affidavit during his chief examination and marked 8 documents
as documentary evidence to prove his claim. In the Ex-parte Evidence, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the following documents
as Exs.P1 to P8 as documentary evidence, in order to prove the suit claim:-
Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff:
S.No. Exhibits Date Description
1. P-1 Certified copy of Bank statement of
the plaintiff for the period from
01.04.2014 to 01.07.2014
2. P-2 Certified copy of Bank statement of
the plaintiff for the period from
01.07.2014 to 30.09.2014
3. P-3 Certified copy of Bank statement of
the plaintiff for the period from
01.07.2015 to 30.09.2015
4. P-4 Certified copy of Bank statement of
the plaintiff for the period from
01.07.2016 to 30.09.2016
5. P-5 31.03.2017 Photocopy of the cheque issued by
the defendant to the plaintiff
6. P-6 11.04.2017 Photocopy of the cheque return
memo issued by the ICICI bank
7. P-7 13.04.2017 Photocopy of the notice issued by
the plaintiff through his counsel to
the defendant
8. P-8 17.04.2017 Photocopy of the postal tracking
information
Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff:
P.W.1. - Mr.S.Karthikeyan (P.W.1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the
documents placed on record.
6. On the perusal of the documents placed on record, it is seen that
the suit is laid for recovery of money from the defendant. Further,
A.Nos.2577 & 2383 of 2017 were filed by the applicant / plaintiff to grant
an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from in any way
alienating either by sale, any encumbrance over the movie Bahubali,
conclusion, morefully described in the schedule annexed to the Judges
summons therein ; and to furnish security for a sum of Rs.1,48,00,000/-
within a time frame and in the event of the failure, to furnish security of the
schedule mentioned property therein respectively and the said applications
were withdrawn at the instance of the plaintiff only on 07.08.2018. Yet
another application, viz., A.No.1884 of 2022 was also filed to re-open the
plaintiff side evidence in the suit in C.S.No.299 of 2017 in view of the fact
that though the plaintiff was in possession of the required amounts and the
said amount was withdrawn by the wife of the plaintiff / close relatives and
paid to the defendant, the same has not been explained through his wife /
close relatives as a witness. However, the said application was also
withdrawn at the instance of the plaintiff on 27.04.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff during his arguments has
averred that he has lodged a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act with regard to the dishonour of cheque and the defendant
was convicted. As against the same, the defendant has moved an appeal
before the learned XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in
C.A.No.113 of 2020 and the learned Sessions Judge has directed to
deposit 20% of the cheque amount, the said direction was not complied
with. However, the said narration of the criminal incidents were not stated
in the plaint.
8. It is pertinent to point out that another application, viz., A.No.6075
of 2018 is filed by the plaintiff seeking a direction to furnish security for a
sum of Rs.1,48,00,000/- within a time frame and in the event of failure to
direct the attachment of the property described in the schedule attached to
the Judges summons. The defendant resisted the said application by way
of a counter alleging that there was no written agreement between the
plaintiff and K.Productions, the entire film production was done only in the
name of K.Productions. The defendant has issued many blank cheques to
the plaintiff to meet the various expenses of film production and the
transaction between the plaintiff and K.Productions was completely a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
business transaction and agreed to share the profits / Loss, if any, on equal
proportion. After due deliberations and mediation by elders, the defendant
agreed to pay certain amount and accordingly, paid some amount.
Thereafter, the plaintiff returned some cheques and fraudulently held back
some of the blank cheques and used the same for the purpose of creating
this fraudulent and untenable claim in the present suit. Also, the film 'Pyaar
Prema Kaadal' is the production venture of M/s YSR Films Pvt., Ltd., alone
and to evident the same, a Certificate with Ref.No.749 dated 01.11.2017
from Central Board of Film Certification was produced, thereby sought to
dismiss the said petition.
9. Be that as it may, on a careful perusal of the entire documents it is
seen that the cheque given by the defendant was dishonored as 'account
closed', to evident the same, Exhibits P.5 and P.6, viz., Photocopy of the
cheque issued by the defendant and the return memo of the said cheque
dated 11.04.2017 were enclosed. Though the defendant has filed a
detailed counter to the applications filed by the plaintiff, but failed to
disprove the averments of the plaintiff by way of written statement or by
advancing arguments before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
10. P.W.1, in his evidence has spoken about the manner in which he
has produced money to the defendant. Ex.P.1 to P.4 are the certified
copies of bank statements of the plaintiff for the period from 01.04.2014 to
01.07.2014; 01.07.2014 to 30.09.2014; 01.07.2015 to 30.09.2015 and
01.07.2016 to 30.09.2016 respectively, to evident the fact that the plaintiff
is capable of lending money to the defendant. The plaintiff has also
produced Ex.P.5, which is the photo copy of the cheque issued by the
defendant and the cheque return memo dated 11.04.2017, Ex.P.6, to prove
that the amount given by the defendant was returned as 'account closed'.
11. From the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents filed, it is
proved that the defendant in order to discharge his debts has given a
cheque and the same was returned as 'account closed', Ex.P.5 and P.6
substantiates the same. The evidence of P.W.1 and documents filed on
behalf of the plaintiff remain unchallenged and there is no rebutable
evidence against the case of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has proved
the case and entitled to the relief as prayed for.
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in respect of prayer (a), by
directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,48,00,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
(Rupees one crore and forty eight lakhs only) with further interest at the
rate of 18% per anum on Rs.1,11,10,000/- from the date of plaint till the
date of realisation. Consequently, connected Application No.6075 of 2018
is closed.
08.06.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment / Non Speaking Judgment
Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff:
S.No. Exhibits Date Description
1. P-1 Certified copy of Bank statement of
the plaintiff for the period from
01.04.2014 to 01.07.2014
2. P-2 Certified copy of Bank statement of
the plaintiff for the period from
01.07.2014 to 30.09.2014
3. P-3 Certified copy of Bank statement of
the plaintiff for the period from
01.07.2015 to 30.09.2015
4. P-4 Certified copy of Bank statement of
the plaintiff for the period from
01.07.2016 to 30.09.2016
5. P-5 31.03.2017 Photocopy of the cheque issued by
the defendant to the plaintiff
6. P-6 11.04.2017 Photocopy of the cheque return
memo issued by the ICICI bank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
S.No. Exhibits Date Description
7. P-7 13.04.2017 Photocopy of the notice issued by
the plaintiff through his counsel to
the defendant
8. P-8 17.04.2017 Photocopy of the postal tracking
information
Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff:
P.W.1. - Mr.S.Karthikeyan (P.W.1)
08.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.299 of 2017
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J
ssd
C.S.No.299 of 2017
08.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
