CINE INDIA Vs. MUTHU ENTERPRISES MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S. Appeal No. 142 of 1991: Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the second respondent.

(2.) THIS appeal is preferred against an order passed in an Application No. 416 of 1991 under Order 14 Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules of this Court read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned single Judge who heard the application took notice of the facts of the case and he came to the conclusion that a prima facie case warranting interim injunction had been made out. He has accordingly made an order of temporary injunction in these words:

(3.) THE above statement of law is in the same terms as in the case of A.V. Meiyappan 1969(I) MLJ 480 and certainly not in conflict with the statement made by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. All that had to be seen for finding out whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case or not was whether under the agreement dated 16-1-1979 the first defendant had transferred the cinematograph ownership in the negative as well as prints to the plaintiff or not and whether such transfer by him also covered the video right or not. Learned single Judge has prima facie found in favour of the plaintiff.