R THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. M R ANBUKKARASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant's case is that the respondents herein have committed contempt of the order of this Court dated 19.01.1996 in W.P. Nos. 10989 and 10990 of 1995. THE fourth respondent though shown as a party is given up.

(2.) THE applicant and the 1st respondent are brothers. THEy and their father the 4th respondent owned several family properties of which two theatres called Lakshmi Talkies and Little Lakshmi Talkies were also included. THEre were disputes amongst these three. Since the obtaining of "C" Form licence was necessary for running of the theatre and in view of the dispute between the parties, the 1st respondent herein filed W.P.s 10989 and 10990 of 1995 for a coertiorarivied mandamus with regard to licence. THE 1st and 2nd respondents in the writ petition are the 2nd and 3rd respondents in this Contempt Petition. THE applicant herein was the 4th respondent. THE 4th respondent is the father.

(3.) THE writ was for certiorarified mandamus to quash this letter and for interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent namely the E.T.O. from refusing to affix the seal on the tickets sold from Lakshmi Talkies and Little Lakshmi Talkies. THE father, the 4th respondent herein filed a vacate stay petition and submitted that he was the exclusive and sole licensee licensed under the Cinema Regulation Act for the theatres Lakshmi talkies and Little Lakshmi talkies. According to the father, the petitioner had no right to obtain the seal from the authorities. He claimed that he alone was the licensee and should be entitled to function and manage the theatre. This counter was filed on 9th October 1995. To this, a reply affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent herein praying for the interim order to be made absolute. This was on 8-11-1995. THE stand of the authorities was that the petitioner is not entitled for an issue of certiorarified mandamus unless and until he shows that he is the license holder in Form C and until the name of the petitioner appears in the "C Form license, his application to sealing of tickets cannot be granted. On 19-12-1995, Justice Shivraj Patil (as he then was) directed the parties to explore the possibility of settlement having regard to the close relationship of the parties and also restraining the applicant and the 1st respondent from obstructing or preventing the father from going to the theatre or participating in the management of the theatre. It was also specifically stated in this order that after the expiry of the existing tickets, it is open to the father to get the seal of the Entertainment Tax Officer. THEreafter the matter was directed to be called on 3-1-1996. THE compromise memo has to be seen against this background. THE petitioner's right to have the tickets sealed was on very tenuous ground since the authorities had categorically stated that unless his name appears in the "C" Form license, they would not affix their seal on the tickets. THE father who was the license holder had also in no uncertain terms stated that the 1st respondent herein had no right to have the tickets sealed since his name and his name alone appears in the "C" Form license. Perhaps the learned Judge considering the submissions made by the learned counsel who appeared for the 1st respondent that he had invested huge funds in the theatre, again persuaded the parties to come to a compromise. Were it not for the compromise, the father would not have agreed to allow the 1st respondent here in to operate the theatre, nor would the authorities have sealed the tickets issued in Lakshmi Talkies and Little Lakshmi Talkies. For five years, the 1st respondent had enjoyed the benefits of the order passed by this Court pursuant to the compromise memo and now, the 1st respondent would like this Court to believe that it was a mere understanding between parties and not an undertaking to the Court. To me, it appears to be not only contempt of Court, but contempt for Court.