Movie titled “Vana Udham” in Tamil and “Attakasa” in Kannada.= When the matter was taken up today, we were told by Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the respondents that the parties have indeed arrived at an amicable settlement making it unnecessary for us to examine on merits the contentions urged by them in support of their respective cases. They further submitted that according to the settlement the respondents have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (twenty five lakhs) to the appellant/plaintiff in full and final settlement of her claims in relation to release of the movie including waiver of any objection she had towards its exhibition in Tamil, Kannada or any other language with deletion of certain scenes from the same as directed by the High Court. Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents would deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- before the Trial Court by tomorrow i.e. 15.2.2013. He urged that in the light of the above settlement, the release of the movie, which is scheduled for today, may not be injuncted by this Court and the suit directed to be disposed off by the trial court as withdrawan.= the deposit would sufficiently redress the appellant’s grievance against production and exhibition of the movie, which is a biopic of her husband, late Veerappan. He urged that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant, in the light of the said settlement shall be withdrawn by her, no sooner the amount is released in her favour by the Trial Court. He urged that the respondents should be directed to publish a Disclaimer in English Edition of daily “Hindu”, Madras Edition, Tamil Edition of “Dina Thanthi” and Kannada Edition of “Prajavani” within two weeks from today stating that the movie is based only on the information available in police records and other material already in public domain. Mr. Mani assured us that his clients would do the needful within two weeks from today.- In the circumstances, therefore, we dispose of these appeals with the direction that the respondents shall deposit the agreed sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- by tomorrow [15.2.2013] before the trial court, which shall be released to the appellant upon an application filed by the plaintiff/appellant for withdrawal of the suit. The parties are left to bear their own costs in this appeal and in the courts below.

' 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1348-1349 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8306-8307/2013)



V. MUTHU LAKSHMI Appellant(s)


VERSUS


AKSHAYA CREATIONS & ORS. Respondent(s)




O R D E R


Leave granted.
These appeals arise out of a common order dated 01.02.2013 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby C.R.P. (PD) Nos.
3943 and 3944 of 2012 have been allowed, and Judgment and Order dated
26.09.2012, passed in C.M.As. No. 61 and 62 of 2012 by the IVth
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, set aside.
It is, in our view, unnecessary to set out in detail the factual
matrix in which the controversy arises except to the extent it is
absolutely necessary to do so for the disposal of these appeals.
Suffice it to say that the respondents are Producers and Directors of
a Movie titled "Vana Udham" in Tamil and "Attakasa" in Kannada. The
movie it appears tries to portray the life of one Veerappan and events
relating to him. The appellant before us, happens, to be widow of
Veerappan, In O.S. No. 9415 of 2011 filed by her before the VIIth
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai the appellant prayed for a
permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents herein
from releasing or exhibiting the Movie produced by them in Tamil and
in Kannada languages or in any other name or language. The suit was
accompanied by an application for temporary injunction restraining
release of the movie and its exhibition in the States of Tamil Nadu,
Karnataka and even in other States. The said application, it appears,
was dismissed by the trial court in terms of an order dated 21.07.2012
holding that the plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case
for the grant of any injunction in her favour. Aggrieved by the
order passed by the Trial Court the Appellant/Plaintiff preferred
C.M.As. No. 61 and 62 of 2012 before the IVth Additional Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai. The Appellate Court by its order dated
26.9.2012, allowed the said appeals, set aside the order passed by the
Trial Court and granted an ad-interim injunction against the Producers
and Directors, restraining them from releasing or exhibiting the said
movie.
Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the 1st Appellate
Court, the respondents filed C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 3943 and 3944 of 2012,
which came up before a Single Judge of the High court of Judicature at
Madras. By its order dated 01.02.2013, the High Court has allowed the
said revisions and set aside the order passed by the VIth Additional
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu in the process restoring
that passed by the trial court. The present appeals by special leave
assail the correctness of the said order, as already noticed earlier.


When the matter came up before us, in mentioning yesterday, i.e. on
13.2.2012, we heard learned counsel for the parties at some length,
who took us through the record and related documents. Towards the
conclusion of the hearing, learned counsel for the parties submitted
that the parties were not averse to exploring the possibilities of an
amicable settlement. We accordingly adjourned the matter to be taken
up today for further hearing. When the matter was taken up today, we
were told by Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the respondents that the parties
have indeed arrived at an amicable settlement making it unnecessary
for us to examine on merits the contentions urged by them in support
of their respective cases. They further submitted that according to
the settlement the respondents have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.
25,00,000/- (twenty five lakhs) to the appellant/plaintiff in full and
final settlement of her claims in relation to release of the movie
including waiver of any objection she had towards its exhibition in
Tamil, Kannada or any other language with deletion of certain scenes
from the same as directed by the High Court. Mr. K.K. Mani, learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents would
deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- before the Trial Court by tomorrow
i.e. 15.2.2013. He urged that in the light of the above settlement,
the release of the movie, which is scheduled for today, may not be
injuncted by this Court and the suit directed to be disposed off by
the trial court as withdrawan.
Mr. Hegde, learned counsel for the appellants, is agreeable to the
above arrangement and submitted that the deposit would sufficiently
redress the appellant's grievance against production and exhibition of
the movie, which is a biopic of her husband, late Veerappan. He urged
that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant, in the light of the
said settlement shall be withdrawn by her, no sooner the amount is
released in her favour by the Trial Court. He urged that the
respondents should be directed to publish a Disclaimer in English
Edition of daily "Hindu", Madras Edition, Tamil Edition of "Dina
Thanthi" and Kannada Edition of "Prajavani" within two weeks from
today stating that the movie is based only on the information
available in police records and other material already in public
domain. Mr. Mani assured us that his clients would do the needful
within two weeks from today.
In the circumstances, therefore, we dispose of these appeals with
the direction that the respondents shall deposit the agreed sum of
Rs. 25,00,000/- by tomorrow [15.2.2013] before the trial court,
which shall be released to the appellant upon an application filed by
the plaintiff/appellant for withdrawal of the suit. The parties are
left to bear their own costs in this appeal and in the courts below.






..............................J.
[T.S.THAKUR]





................................J.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]







New Delhi,
February 14,2013




ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.9 SECTION XII


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8306-8307/2013
(From the judgement and order dated 01/02/2013 in CRP No.3943/2012,CRP
No.3944/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)

V. MUTHU LAKSHMI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
AKSHAYA CREATIONS & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment and
prayer for interim relief)


Date: 14/02/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA


For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay R Hegde,Adv.
Mr. S Nithin,Adv.
Mr. Darpan KM,Adv.
Mr. S. Gowthaman,Adv.


For Respondent(s) Mr. K.K. Mani,Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Krishna,Adv.
Mr. A Lakshminarayan,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R


Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.





|(N.K. Goel) | (Veena Khera) |
|Court Master | Court Master |


(Signed order is placed on the file)