Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.VISWAAS FILMS versus M/S.GLOBAL FILM DISTRIBUTORS

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s.Viswaas Films v. M/s.Global Film Distributors - O.S.A.No.113 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 479 (19 July 2005)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



Dated: 19/07/2005

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.MISRA

and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.KANNADASAN

O.S.A.No.113 of 2005

and

C.M.P.No.9140 of 2005 and V.C.M.P.No.11459 of 2005 M/s.Viswaas Films

Private Ltd.,

rep., by its Managing Director,

V.Sundar, No.38, Nathamuni Street,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Appellant -Vs-

1.M/s.Global Film Distributors

Inc. rep. by Daljinder Singh and

Tinashaw, No.12, Pond Drive,

Mutton Town, New York.11791.

2.Vazhakala Agencies

rep. by its Managing Partner,

Aabraham Thomas

Kodhimadha, Kottayam,

Kerala State.

3.P.Vijayakumar,

Prop. M/s.Wind Screens

R.K.V. Studio Complex,

(Vijaya Gardens),

New No.317/G, Old No.170

N.S.K.Salai, Vadapalani,

Chennai-600 026.

4.M/s.Gemini Colour Laboratories,

Vembuliamman Koil Street,

Virugambakkam,

Chennai-600 092. .. Respondents This Appeal is preferred against the order of this Court dated 4.5.2 005 in Original Application No.540 of 2005 in C.S.No.448 of 2005. For Appellant : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan,

Sr. Advocate for

Mr.R.Vasudevan

For Respondents-1to3 : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam,

Sr. Advocate for

Mr.S.K.Chandrakumar

:JUDGMENT



(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY P.K.MISRA, J.)

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 4.5.2005 in Original Application No.540 of 2005 in C.S.No.448 of 2005. The said order was to the following effect:-

"Learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that before release necessary notice will be given to the applicant one week prior. The same is recorded. Post this matter after vacation. In case of any urgency, liberty is given to the applicant to move the vacation Court."

Thereafter, in the appeal an exparte order was passed on 31.5.2005.

3. After hearing the counsels for both sides, we do not think that the order passed on 4.5.2005 is appealable as no right of any party has been decided in the said order. As per the order, simply the matter was adjourned beyond vacation with liberty given to the applicant to move the vacation Court, in case of any urgency.

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that under the said order, the learned single Judge recorded the submission of the counsel for respondents to the effect that "before release necessary notice will be given to the applicant one week prior" and such recording of the submission made by the counsel for respondents amounted to passing an order in favour of respondents. We do not agree with such submission made by the learned senior counsel for the applicant. In our opinion, the matter was simply adjourned to beyond vacation and no right either of the applicant or of the respondents was decided. In such view of the matter, the appeal itself is not maintainable. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in case it is observed that the appeal is not maintainable, a direction should be issued to list the matter before the learned single Judge for decision on merit. The counsels for both parties agreed that Original Application No.540 of 2005 in C.S.No.448 of 2005 may be listed before the learned single Judge on 22.7.2005. It goes without saying that the matter will be decided on its own merits without being influenced in any manner by any observations made in the order dated 4.5.2005 or by the fact that an interim order passed exparte by the Division Bench on 31 .5.2005. Office is directed to list the Original Application No.540 of 2005 in C.S.No.448 of 2005 before the learned single Judge on 22.7.2005. Subject to this order, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP and VCMP are dismissed. No costs. Internet : Yes

Index : Yes

Svn




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.