SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Actor simbu counter in isary ganesan casev

by · Published · Updated

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

O.A. No. 741 of 2023

 

In the matter of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in the matter of disputes between M/s. Vels Film International Ltd, and Mr. T.R Silambarasan under Artiste agreement dated 16/07/2021.

 

M/s. Vels Film International Ltd,

Represented by its Director Mr. Ashwinkumar,

No. 521/2, Nandanam,

Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 035                                                                         … Applicant

 

– VS –

 

Mr. T.R. Silambarasan,

S/o. T. Rajendran,

No. 4A, Hindi Prachar Sabha Street,

T Nagar, Chennai – 600 017                                                            … Respondent

 

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

 

I, T.R. Silambarasan S/o. T. Rajhentherr, aged about 40 years, residing at No. 6, Masilamani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

 

  • I am the Respondent in the Present Application and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. I have perused the affidavit filed by the Applicant and deny the entire averments made in the Affidavit filed by the Applicant.

 

  • It is submitted that the Respondent is a famous and well acclaimed actor in the South Indian film industry, predominantly in the Tamil Film Industry. It is submitted that the Respondent is one of the leading actors in the Tamil Film Industry.

 

  • It is submitted that the Respondent’s irrefutable acting ability, charisma, distinct personal style and mannerisms in films have contributed to his mass popularity and appeal. It is submitted that the Respondent has wide-spread fan base all over the world. It is submitted that the Respondent is a man of high esteem in the society, more particularly in the film industry.

 

  • It is submitted that the Applicant approached the Respondent and requested to do Film under his production house. The Respondent agreed to do a Film with the Applicant production company. The Respondent acted as a hero in the Film titled “Vendhu Thaninthathu Kadu” and Subsequently the Film got released under the under the production house of the Applicant.

 

  • It is submitted that the Applicant and Respondent entered into another Artiste Agreement dated 16/07/2021 for an untitled film. It is submitted that the relevant clause of the Agreement is extracted below;

 

  1. It is submitted that the consideration of the Respondent is fixed as Rs. 9,50,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crore Fifty lakhs Only)

 

  1. The Producer agreed to pay the above said renumeration are extracted below;

 

  1. Advance – 1 crore
  2. Before start of 1st schedule – Rs. 2.50 crores
  3. Before start of 2nd schedule – Rs. 2.50 crores
  4. Before start of 3rd schedule – Rs. 2 crores
  5. Before the dubbing of the movie – Rs. 1.50 crores

 

  1. a clause in the page 2 of the Agreement states that for any reason the shoot does not commence, as per mutual discussion or the movie is abandoned due to unforeseen circumstances, the artist will not return the advance to the producer but they can change the dates as your requirement but you should utilize the date within one year from the date of this Agreement. This will not be applicable in the case of natural disasters like Covid, Tsunamis, Etc., In such cases, the dates will be Mutually discussed and finalised.

 

  1. a clause in the page 2 of the Agreement states that, both the parties i.e. the Producer and the Artiste agree that the said Film is under the direction of Mutually agreed Director only and shooting dates are exclusively for M/s Vels Film International limited and cannot be transferred by the Producer to any other Producer or production house.

 

  1. a clause in the page 2 of the agreement states that total number of shooting call sheet dates allotted by the Artiste for the said picture is 50 days only. If any further few days of call sheet are required by the producer, then it will be allotted after mutual discussion between the parties. The shooting will commence tentatively during the month within a year of signing this agreement, subject to availability of the Artiste commitment for prior projects.

 

  1. a clause in the page 3 of the Agreement states that the Producer and Artist mutually agree to start the film within a year of signing this Agreement. For some reason if the film does not commence within this time period the Advance given to the Respondent will not be returned. The term of the Agreement got expired on 15/07/2022.

 

Para Wise Reply

 

  • The Respondent denies the allegation made in paras 2,3,4, 6 of the Affidavit filed by the Applicant. It is true that the consideration was fixed as Rs. 9.5 crores. It is totally false to state that that the Respondent received 4.5 crores out of 9.5 crores. The Respondent has received a sum of Rs. 1 crore as non-refundable advance. The Respondent has not received the remaining 3.5 crores from the Applicant and the Applicant is put to strict proof of the same.

 

  • It is submitted that the Applicant states that they have paid the said 3.5 crores as cash to the Respondent and filed a document in Additional typeset showing some dates, money paid and signature of the Person received. It is submitted that the Respondent denies the said cash transactions alleged to be received by him. The Respondent states that he did not receive the said cash from the Applicant and the signature found in the said document is not the signature of the Respondent. The Applicant is put to strict proof of the same.

 

  • It is submitted that as per the agreement, Rs 1 crore is paid as advance and the next tranche of payment to a sum of Rs. Rs.2.50 crores shall be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent only before the Start of first schedule of shoot. It is submitted that not even the pre-production of the film commenced, when that being the case, the applicant averment’s that they paid 3.5 crores is totally false and misleading and contradictory to their own averments made in the affidavit.

 

  • It is submitted that as per the agreement, the term of the agreement is one year from the date of signing of the agreement dated 16/07/2021. The said agreement expires on 15/07/2022. It is submitted that the Respondent has allotted 50 days for the said film but the Applicant did not use the said 50 days on or before 15/07/2022.

 

  • The Respondent agreed to cooperate to adjust the dates, if the shoot gets abandoned due to unforeseen circumstances and as per the terms of the agreement, the said adjustment of dates by the Respondent shall be utilized by the applicant within a period of one year from the date of signing the agreement. The Applicant did not use the said 50 days on or before 15/07/2022. The Applicant themselves admitted in para 2 of the affidavit that they could not start the film after promo song. This admission clearly establishes the breach committed by the Applicant by not commencing even the pre-production work of the film.

 

  • The Applicant has clearly suppressed the vital factor with regard to the refund of Advance amount of Rs. 1 crore as stated in the agreement. It is submitted that in page 2 of the Agreement, a clause clearly states that for any reason the shoot does not commence, the Respondent will not return the advance to the producer/Applicant. Further once again a clause in the page 3 of the Agreement clearly states that if the film does not commence within one year from the date of signing of the agreement the Advance amount paid by the Applicant to the Respondent will not be returned. It is submitted that the said clause of the agreement was not mentioned in the affidavit filed by the Applicant.

 

  • It is submitted that further a clause in the page 3 of the Agreement states that the Producer and Artist mutually agree to start the film within a year of signing this Agreement. For some reason if the film does not commence within this time period, the Advance given will not be returned by the Respondent.

 

  • It is submitted that the Applicant has not given the Production timeline Schedule with regard to pre-production, shooting period of the film and post-production of the Film. The Respondent requested the applicant for the Production timeline schedule and the same was not given by the Applicant till the expiry of one year on 15/07/2022, from the date of the agreement. The Respondent waited till 15/07/2022 without committing to other projects to be produced by other producers. The Respondent dedicated his time only for the production house of the Applicant and the Respondent not only lost his time for the film but also lost his opportunity to commit in other film projects and same resulted in financial loss to the Respondent.

 

  • It is totally false to state that the Applicant made continuous request to the Respondent seeking date and the Respondent dodged without giving dates for the shooting of the film. The Applicant is put to strict proof of the same. The said allegation is contrary to their own averment made in para 2 stating that they could not start the movie after promo. In such case, the Respondent would have committed in another project but the Respondent did not get committed in other film project.

 

  • It is totally false to state that the Applicant has sent a letter dated 11.05.2023 requesting the Respondent to give dates to commence first schedule of the shoot. The said letter dated 11.05.2023 was not received by the Respondent and the Applicant has not filed the acknowledgement card / delivery report to the alleged letter dated 11.05.2023. The applicant forgot the fact that the one-year agreement period expired on 15.07.22 itself. It is a clear case of afterthought by the Applicant.

 

  • It is totally false to state that the Respondent received a legal notice dated 17.08.2023 appointing an arbitrator. The said legal notice dated 17.08.2023 was not received by the Respondent and the Applicant has not filed the acknowledgement cars/delivery report to the Legal notice dated 11.05.2023. it is further submitted that Respondent was not in Chennai during the said period and the Respondent is ready to produce the Air tickets and accommodation details during the said period.

 

  • It is submitted that now the Respondent got committed in a film tentatively titled “#STR48” to be produced by Raaj Kamal Films International. After the announcement of the said production by Raaj Kamal Films International and commencement of pre-production work, the Applicant has come to court on 22/08/2023 only.

 

  • It is submitted that the Applicant must make specific averments in the affidavit to get a benefit for furnishing security. Furnish security cannot be granted merely for the asking and it should be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with law. The purpose of seeking furnish security is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. It is submitted that the attempt by the applicant to get an order of furnish security is used as a leverage for coercing the Respondent to settle the case should not be Permitted. The Applicant has not even sought for a prayer seeking to furnish security. It is submitted that the Applicant has not even made a single averment in the affidavit as required by law to get an order of furnishing security. Further the allegations made in the Affidavit are bald and for this reason, the Applicant is not entitled for a direction to furnish security.

 

  • It is submitted that the Defendant is a well know Actor in South India. The Defendant’s livelihood is based on his acting profession only. It is submitted that the right to livelihood is an essential component of the right to life. The Supreme Court and our court have repeatedly held that the right to livelihood includes the right to work and earn a livelihood.

 

  • The Applicants prayer sought for is an interim injunction Respondent from acting in any movies without completing the movie produced by the Applicant as agreed in agreement dated 16.07.2021. It is very clear from the above stated facts that the Respondent cannot be restrained from acting in any other film other than film produced by the Applicant. Further it is very clear that the Respondent need not furnish security or refund the advance amount the sum of Rs. 1 crore to the Applicant as per the agreement dated 16.07.2023.

 

  • The Respondent is agreeing to go before arbitration to adjudicate the dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent. The Hon’ble court may appoint a retired High Court Judge to adjudicate the dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent.

 

It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to Vacate the Interim order granted by this Hon’ble Court in O.A. No. 741 of 2023 on 29/08/2023 and pass such orders this Hon’ble may deem to be fit and thus render justice.

 

 

 

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai                                                    BEFORE ME

on this the 11th day of September 2023

having signed his name in my presence

ADVOCATE, CHENNAI

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

O.A. No. 741 of 2023

 

M/s. Vels Film International Ltd,

… Applicant

– VS –

Mr. T.R Silambarasan,

… Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Vijayan Subramanian (1215/2007)

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

You may also like...