Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 91209 (MAD)

Sanjay Bhansali v. J.Neelakandan @ V.T.V.Ganesh

CS/767/2017 · 2025-06-23

C V Karthikeyan

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

C.S.No.767 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-06-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN CS No. 767 of 2017 1. Sanjay Bhansali S/o.M.C.Bhansali, No.38, Audiappa Naicken Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-79 Plaintiff(s) Vs 1. J.Neelakandan @ V.T.V.Ganesh Propr. M/s.VTV Productions S/o.Janardhanam, G3, Lotus Colony, Nandanam, Chennai-35 2.S.Rajeswari W/o.J.Neelakandan, G3, Lotus Colony, Nandaman, Chennai-35 Defendant(s) PRAYER a)Directing the defendants to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,92,13,600/- along with interest @ 24 per annum on the said sum b)For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, or any other person acting on their behalf from releasing the picture Chakka podu podu Raja https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.767 of 2017 starring N.Santhanam and Others. For Plaintiff(s): Mr.V.Anil Kumar For Defendant(s): Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan JUDGMENT This Suit has been filed to direct the defendants to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,92,13,600/- along with interest @ 24 per annum on the said sum and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, or any other person acting on their behalf from releasing the picture Chakka podu podu Raja starring N.Santhanam and Others. 2. The counsel for the plaintiff is present. The plaintiff is also present. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has made the following endorsement: "The plaintiff may be permitted to withdraw the present suit as settled out of Court. The office may be directed to return the documents to the plaintiff." 3. The plaintiff has signed in the endorsement and counter signed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is dismissed as settled out of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.767 of 2017 Court. No costs. 4. The Registry may examine whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the Court Fee and if so, take appropriate decision. If a memo is filed seeking return of the original mortgage deed, the Registry may return it and substitute it by an attested true copy. 23-06-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No gsk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.767 of 2017 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J. gsk To 1. J.Neelakandan @ V.T.V.Ganesh Propr. M/s.VTV Productions S/o.Janardhanam, G3, Lotus Colony, Nandanam, Chennai-35 2.S.Rajeswari W/o.J.Neelakandan, G3, Lotus Colony, Nandaman, Chennai-35 C.S.No.767 of 2017 23.06.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis