Court gives relief to film producer Mahendra Dhariwal

The court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, has provided relief to film producer Mahendra Dhariwal by setting aside a judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), dated March 22. 2018, whereby he was ordered to pay Rs 28,53,200 to city-based financier Samdarshi Kashinath Jaiswal, along with interest.

Advertisement

The judge has passed the order on an appeal filed by Mahendra Dhariwal through advocate Harish Bhardwaj. Jaiswal filed the suit for recovery of Rs 3 crore through his legal heir on the basis of alleged agreements dated January 19, 2002, and May 17, 2005, and cheque allegedly issued by Dhariwal in favour of Jaiswal.

Samdarshi Kashinath Jaiswal expired during pendency of the trial and the suit was contested through his legal heir. Kashinath Jaiswal in the suit said he was carrying on various businesses, including financing of films. Mahendra Dhariwal is a producer of Hindi feature films and carries on business under, inter alia, various names including M/s Indian Movies as sole proprietor, M/s Dhariwal Films Pvt Ltd and Evershine Films Ltd as their Director and Evershine Films as its proprietor.

Dhariwal approached him for production and finance of films namely ‘Maa Tujhe Salaam’ starring Sunny Deol, Tabu and Arbaaz Khan, ‘Nehle Pe Dehla’ starring Sanjay Dutt and Saif Ali, ‘Hatyara’ and ‘Jail’.

Kashinath Jaiswal agreed to give loan to him and financed Rs 1,10,00,000 for films over a period of time. But the release of the films delayed. Dhariwal promised to pay the entire due amount before distribution of films in Chandigarh and different parts of India. However, he failed to complete the film till 2004. Jaiswal had granted loan to Dhariwal due to friendly relations. It was agreed in both the agreements that Dhariwal will clear entire dues before the release of films. The film, ‘Maa Tujhe Salaam’, has already been released, but no payment has been made.

On the other hand, Harish Bhardwaj, counsel of the Dhariwal, denied the allegations. He said the alleged agreement is a forged and fabricated document. The trial court partly allowed the suit against Dhariwal with proportionate costs for recovery of Rs 28,53,200, along with interest and for recovery of interest on the delayed payment of 21,46,800, @ 9% per annum from the due date.

Bhardwaj argued in the appeal that trial court has not considered the full facts while pronouncing the judgment. He said Kashinath was a moneylender and therefore the suit filed by him was not maintainable as he was not having a licence or permit as required under the Act.

After hearing of the arguments Additional District Judge Rajnish Garg said once it had been established on record that plaintiff was a moneylender from the evidence adduced by his son, this fact cannot be ignored by this court and in the considered opinion of this court, suit filed by plaintiff was not maintainable as he was not having necessary licence or permit to file the suit. It does not make any difference that no specific issue was framed by trial court in this regard as the same was covered under the issue of maintainability of the suit. In view this, the suit filed by plaintiff was wrongly partly decreed by trial court and decree dated March 22, 2018, passed by trial court was not sustainable in the eyes of law, the judge said.