The Madras High Court on Friday accused Lyca Productions in T Nagar, the makers of Indian-2, starring actor-turned-politician Kamal Hassan, of indulging in `forum shopping’ seeking remedy from multiple courts. . For Applicant : Mr. R. Prabhakaran For Respondent : Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel for M/s.D.Saikumaran -+—-+CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Original.Application Nos.211 and 212 of 2021 and Application No.2043 of 2021 in O.A.No.211 of 2021 M/s. Lyca Productions Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Director Mr.Neelakant Narayanpur No.55, Vijayaraghava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600017. … Applicant [in all Applications] versus Mr.S. Shankar S/o Mr.Shanmugam No.5/115, Ashok Street, Bharathi Avenue, Injambakam Chennai 600 115. … Respondent [in all Applications]

[7/3, 18:38] Sekarreporter: The Madras High Court on Friday accused Lyca Productions in T Nagar, the makers of Indian-2, starring actor-turned-politician Kamal Hassan, of indulging in `forum shopping’ seeking remedy from multiple courts. .

Justice N Sathish Kumar made the accusation while dismissing the applications from Lyca seeking to restrain director S Shankar from taking up any other project before completing the film Indian-2 and for a direction to him to furnish a security to the tune of Rs.170 crore in its favour.

Justice Sathish Kumar noted that when the matter came up for admission on the very first occasion, he had ordered notice to the defendants. Challenging the same, Lyca had filed an original side application before the first bench of the High Court, where also it could not get any order. For the similar relief including other parties the applicant had filed a suit before the City Civil Court in Hyderabad. “The above conduct of applicant (Lyca) choosing forum shopping is also cannot be ignored . At any event, on discussion of the entire facts, in a given case this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out any prima facie case for grant of interim orders,” the judge said.

The judge also noted that though the dispute arose in October 2020, till now Lyca had not taken any steps to invoke the Arbitration clause. Only during arguments when the court pointed out the same, it hurriedly filed an application and Justice R Banumathi, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed as the Arbitrator, on June 30.

“Therefore, when the applicant has not shown manifest intention to invoke the Arbitration quickly to resolve the dispute and there were severe allegations made against each other and there is no contract restraining Shankar from doing his regular business, the interim injunction sought by it, if allowed by this court, will amount to restrain Shankar from doing his own trade or profession which is against the very statutory provision of Section 27 of the Contract Act,” the judge said and dismissed the applications.
[7/3, 18:38] Sekarreporter: O.A.Nos.211 and 212 of 2021 & A.No.2043 of 2021 in O.A.No.211 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Delivered on
23.06.2021 02.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Original.Application Nos.211 and 212 of 2021 and
Application No.2043 of 2021 in O.A.No.211 of 2021
M/s. Lyca Productions Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep.by its Director
Mr.Neelakant Narayanpur
No.55, Vijayaraghava Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600017. … Applicant
[in all Applications]
versus
Mr.S. Shankar
S/o Mr.Shanmugam
No.5/115, Ashok Street,
Bharathi Avenue,
Injambakam
Chennai 600 115. … Respondent
[in all Applications]
Prayer in O.A.No.211 of 2021: Original Application filed under Order XIV
Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Section 9(i)(ii)(d) & (e) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant order of ad-injunction,
restraining the Respondent from infringing and exploiting the exclusive right
of the Applicant under Clause 9 and 10 of Director, Author, Scriptwriter
agreement dated 03.07.2019
1/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
[7/3, 18:39] Sekarreporter: O.A.Nos.211 and 212 of 2021 & A.No.2043 of 2021 in O.A.No.211 of 2021
Prayer in O.A.No.212 of 2021: Original Application filed under Order XIV
Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Section 9(i)(ii)(d) & (e) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant and order of Mandatory
Injunction, directing the Respondent not to involve in any other film either for
directing or scriptwriting or screenplay without completing the film Indian-2,
as per Director, Author, Scriptwriter, Screenplay Writer Agreement dated
03.07.2019.
Prayer in A.No.2043 of 2021: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of
Original Side Rules read with Section 9(i)(ii)(d) & (e) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, to direct the respondent to furnish security to the extent
of Rs.170,23,92,293/- in favour of the Applicant.
For Applicant : Mr. R. Prabhakaran
For Respondent : Mr. P.S. Raman,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.D.Saikumaran

O R D E R
Original Application No.211 of 2021 has been filed for injunction
restraining the Respondent from infringing and exploiting the exclusive right
of the Applicant as per Clause 9 and 10 of the Agreement dated 03.07.2019
entered into between them; Original Application No.212 of 2021 has been
filed for mandatory injunction, directing the Respondent not to involve in any
other film either for directing or scriptwriting or screen play without
completing the film ‘Indian-2’ as per the Agreement and A.No.2043 of 2021
2/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
[7/3, 18:39] Sekarreporter: O.A.Nos.211 and 212 of 2021 & A.No.2043 of 2021 in O.A.No.211 of 2021
Applicant has not established prima facie case and balance of convenience is
also not in their favour and if at all the Applicant is able to prove all the breach
complained by him for so called delay, he is not without any remedy. They can
seek for damages. Therefore, there will not be any irreparable injury caused to
the Applicant at this stage. Accordingly, Injunction has to fail. As far as the
prayer for furnishing of security there is not even single averment which are
mandatory for seeking such relief is made in the application. Therefore,
merely on the basis of the bald statements, Respondent cannot be ordered to
furnish security. Accordingly all the Applications are liable to be dismissed.
28. In the result, all the Applications are dismissed.
02.07.2021
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
Spaking/Non-speaking order
ggs
28/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/