Holding

The Bombay suit should not be transferred but its further proceedings should be stayed until the Madras suit is disposed of.

Summary

The parties were involved in two distribution agreements for the film 'Aag Ka Dariya', one dated 28 February 1985 with R. Venkatraman and a later one dated 7 October 1993 with M/s. Avtar Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Three suits arose: a Bombay suit by Venkatraman seeking cancellation of the 1985 agreement, a Madras High Court suit by the petitioner seeking declaration of rights under the 1993 agreement and an interim injunction (which was upheld), and a Bombay suit by S.S. Enterprises challenging the Madras injunction. The Supreme Court was asked, under Article 139A(1)/(2) of the Constitution, whether the Bombay suit should be transferred to the Madras High Court to be tried together with the earlier Madras suit. The Court held that instead of transferring the suit, the Bombay proceedings should be stayed until the Madras suit is finally disposed of, without affecting pending contempt proceedings. The transfer petition was therefore dismissed and the parties were directed to seek a speedy disposal of the Madras suit.

Issues considered

Whether the suit pending in the Bombay High Court should be transferred to the Original Side of the Madras High Court for trial along with the earlier suit.
Whether the stay of the Bombay suit would affect the contempt proceedings pending before the Bombay High Court.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 139A(1), s. Article 139A(2)

Subjects

transfer of suitArticle 139Ainjunctionstay of proceedingscontemptfilm distribution agreementjurisdictionoriginal side

Judgment

i :

M/S. AVTAR SINGH & CO. PVT. LTD. A
v.
MIS. S.S. ENTERPRISES AND ORS.

MARCH 11, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

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
• 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.
E
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (C) No. 658
of 1995.

(Under Article 139A(l)/(2) of the Constitution oflndia.)

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.

Ashok M. Sarogi and Ms. S. Usha Reddy, for the Respondent No.
3. G
Bhimrao Naik and Revathy Raghavan for Impleading party.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

We have heard learned counsel on both sides. H
203
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
AVTAR SINGH AND CO. PVT. LTD. v. S.S. ENTERPRISES 205

from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. It is an admitted A
" position that two prints of the film have already been despatched to
Singapore for distribution. It is apprehended by the respondents Mis. S.S.
Enterprises that further prints are likely to be despatched to the other
foreign jurisdictions. Shri Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the
implcading party, to be impleadcd, states that his right would be affected B
if any status quo order is granted. It would be in fitness of things that the
status quo pending disposal of the above SLPs is confined to the rights the
petitioner had pursuant to the contract dated October 7, 1993; it would be
' open to the clients of Shri Naik, if he had any right lo seek implcadment
in the pending SLPs against injunction order passed by the learned Single
Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, the C
subject matter of SLP (C) Nos. 27695-96i95. We need not go into the
controversy between the parties said to be had by the clients of Shri Naik
vis-a-vis of Mis. S.S. Enterprises. It would be open to them to make an
application seeking impleadment as party in pending SLP (C) Nos. 27695-
96i95. The interim order passed in this case stands modified by this order. D

The Transfer Petition is disposed of accordingly.

T.N.A. Petition disposed of.

•