{"id":69377,"date":"2008-06-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-29T22:14:34","modified_gmt":"2016-07-29T16:44:34","slug":"sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 3257 of 2007()\n\n\n1. SOWPARNIKA ARTS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. JAYASHANKER M., AGED 39 YEARS,\n3. V.M.NOUSHAD, AGED 39 YEARS,\n4. A.U.SABUDHEEN, AGED 37 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SHENOY CINEMAX,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :25\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                         V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n                    Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007\n                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n                       Dated: 04-07-2008\n\n                              ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. the revision petitioners consisting of a partnership firm<\/p>\n
by name Sauparnika       Arts and its three    partners who were<\/p>\n
respectively A1 to A4 in S.T. No. 1769 of 2003 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Ernakulam,       challenge the<\/p>\n
conviction entered and the sentence passed against them<\/p>\n
concurrently by the Courts below for        an offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act” for short).    The first<\/p>\n
respondent herein namely M\/s. Shenoy Cinemax which is also a<\/p>\n
partnership firm was the complainant in the above case. The<\/p>\n
cheques which were the subject matter of these proceedings<\/p>\n
were Exts.P2 and P3         covering a total amount of         Rs.<\/p>\n
36,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    I heard Adv. Philip T. Varghese the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the revision petitioners and Adv. Sri. A.V. Thomas,<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                      -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.<\/p>\n
         3.      Adv. Sri. Philip T. Varghese, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the             revision petitioner made the following<\/p>\n
submissions before me in support of the revision:-<\/p>\n
         The complainant        had    conveniently omitted to produce<\/p>\n
Ext.D1        original    agreement    dated  21-6-2002   and   Ext.D3<\/p>\n
supplementary agreement dated 16-5-2003. The non-production<\/p>\n
of those agreement by the complainant was willful.              Those<\/p>\n
agreements will clearly show that there was no necessity for the<\/p>\n
accused to issue Exts. P2 and P3 cheques to the complainant.<\/p>\n
The Courts below failed to see that the transaction between the<\/p>\n
complainant and the accused was solely on the basis of the<\/p>\n
terms and conditions stipulated in Ext. D1 agreement and Ext.P3<\/p>\n
supplementary agreement. Those agreements will further show<\/p>\n
that the case of the complainant that an additional loan of Rs. 20<\/p>\n
lakhs was taken by the accused is improbable, if not false. The<\/p>\n
courts below overlooked the fact that Exts.P11 to P14 letters<\/p>\n
allegedly sent by the accused to the complainant were fabricated<\/p>\n
for the purpose of this case after those signed papers and the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                        -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
two signed cheques which were entrusted with DW2,                     (the<\/p>\n
financier) were treacherously procured by the complainant. The<\/p>\n
courts below have ignored the fact that the complainant has<\/p>\n
failed to prove the payment of Rs. 12 lakhs to M\/s. Prasad Film<\/p>\n
Laboratory , Thiruvananthapuram.              The courts below ought to<\/p>\n
have found that Exts. D1 to D10 and the testimony of DW1 have<\/p>\n
the effect of           improbabilising, if not falsifying the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant and that the accused had thereby rebutted the<\/p>\n
presumptions under Sec. 118 and Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act. The<\/p>\n
courts below erred in finding that over and above the liability<\/p>\n
under Exts. D1 and D3, the accused had incurred an additional<\/p>\n
liability of Rs. 36 lakhs. The courts below failed to see that there<\/p>\n
were sufficient           circumstances to show that Exts.P2 and P3<\/p>\n
cheques were issued as signed blank cheques to the financier<\/p>\n
namely M\/s. Ashok Investments, Chennai and the complainant<\/p>\n
had in collusion with the financier got possession of those<\/p>\n
cheques and filed the present case after converting those signed<\/p>\n
blank cheques into Exts.P2 and P3 cheques and after concocting<\/p>\n
the signed papers given in the letter-head of the accused into<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                  -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P11 to P13 letters. The courts below ought to have found<\/p>\n
that the contents of Ext.P15 letter reveals that it is a false<\/p>\n
document.\n<\/p>\n
         4.      I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above<\/p>\n
submissions.\n<\/p>\n
         5.      What has been unravelled by the averments in the<\/p>\n
complaint and the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the<\/p>\n
case is the following:-\n<\/p>\n
         The complainant is a partnership firm by name    Shenoy<\/p>\n
Cinemax engaged in the distribution and exhibition of films. The<\/p>\n
first accused is also a partnership firm by name Souparnika Arts<\/p>\n
engaged in the production and distribution of films. Accused Nos.<\/p>\n
2 to 4 are the partners of the first accused firm. On 21-6-2002<\/p>\n
the complainant and the            accused entered   into Ext.D1<\/p>\n
agreement whereunder the accused            agreed to assign the<\/p>\n
distribution rights of a Malayalam movie by name “Sadanandante<\/p>\n
Samayam” which was being produced by the accused staring<\/p>\n
Dileep, Kavya Madhavan and others. The said movie was to be<\/p>\n
released            in the month of December 2002.     The total<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                      -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration agreed upon for the assignment of the distribution<\/p>\n
rights of the above feature film in the State of Kerala was Rs. 95<\/p>\n
lakhs out of which Rs. 81 lakhs was to be paid as advance<\/p>\n
before the release of the movie and the balance amount of Rs. 14<\/p>\n
lakhs was to be paid after the release of the movie to be spent<\/p>\n
for the purpose of publicity etc.          The 2nd accused examined as<\/p>\n
DW1 has admitted that the accused received the advance amount<\/p>\n
of Rs. 81 lakhs as provided under Ext.D1 agreement. In the said<\/p>\n
agreement the accused had asserted that            they are the full and<\/p>\n
absolute owners of the distribution rights of the feature film and<\/p>\n
that no other party had any right, lien, charge or claim<\/p>\n
whatsoever in respect of the said movie. The agreement also<\/p>\n
provided that the accused would settle all the claims of the<\/p>\n
artists , technicians, outdoor units, labs etc. and would keep the<\/p>\n
said picture           free from any claims whatsoever.  However, the<\/p>\n
production of the film got delayed due to reasons attributable to<\/p>\n
the accused and release of the movie was re-scheduled on 16-5-<\/p>\n
2003.         On 10-5-2003 the accused         as   per Ext.P11 letter<\/p>\n
requested the complainant to pay Rs. 16 lakhs i.e.          12 lakhs to<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                     -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
clear the dues to Prasad Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram and<\/p>\n
Rs. 4 lakhs              for post – production works.  Although the<\/p>\n
complainant had parted with the sum of Rs. 81 lakhs as promised<\/p>\n
under Ext.D1 agreement, considering the the assurance given by<\/p>\n
the accused that the additional amount of Rs. 16 lakhs would be<\/p>\n
paid within one month of the date of the release of the movie,<\/p>\n
the complainant paid the           further amount of Rs. 16 lakhs by<\/p>\n
paying Rs. 4 lakhs by way of cheque on 10-5-2003 directly to the<\/p>\n
accused and arranging Rs. 12 lakhs to be paid to Prasad Lab on<\/p>\n
16-5-2003 through Kairali Theatres which owed amounts to the<\/p>\n
complainant. The said payment was also by means of cheques.<\/p>\n
At that time also the accused had assured the complainant that<\/p>\n
there was no other charge or lien over the film in favour of any<\/p>\n
other person and that the movie could be released without any<\/p>\n
impediment.                 On 13-5-2003 the accused informed the<\/p>\n
complainant as per Ext.P12 letter that in April 2003 they had<\/p>\n
borrowed           money from Ashok Investments,     a financier  at<\/p>\n
Chennai represented by DW2 by pledging the negatives of the<\/p>\n
movie and              a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was due to       Ashok<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                      -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Investments. The accused thus placed the complainant in such a<\/p>\n
predicament that           without clearing the dues in favour of Ashok<\/p>\n
Investments the film could not be released. Left with no option,<\/p>\n
the complainant was compelled to pay the additional sum of Rs.<\/p>\n
20 lakhs          to the financier in the hope of getting the movie<\/p>\n
released soon. Ext.D3 supplementary agreement dated 16-5-<\/p>\n
2003 was executed between the accused and the complainant<\/p>\n
specifically referring to Ext.P12 letter. The Annexure to the said<\/p>\n
agreement showed publicity expenses of Rs. 19.5. lakhs. On 16-<\/p>\n
5-2003 the accused gave Ext.P13 letter dated 16-5-2003 along<\/p>\n
with which           Ext.P2 post-dated cheque bearing the date 21-6-<\/p>\n
2003 for Rs. 20 lakhs and Ext.P3 post – dated cheque bearing<\/p>\n
the date 21-6-2003 for Rs. 16 lakhs, were enclosed. As per<\/p>\n
Ext.P14 letter dated 20-5-2003 the accused informed the<\/p>\n
complainant with reference to Ext.D3 supplementary agreement<\/p>\n
that they are unable to undertake the newspaper publicity<\/p>\n
directly and requested the complainant to do the newspaper<\/p>\n
advertisement for the film which was being released on 22-5-<\/p>\n
2003. In this letter the accused have confessed that they are<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                       -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
very well aware of the implications which may follow consequent<\/p>\n
on their committing breach of agreement . On 22-5-2003 the<\/p>\n
film was released. Ext.D5 is a lawyer notice sent on behalf of<\/p>\n
the accused to DW2 the proprietor of Ashok Investments stating<\/p>\n
that the accused had availed a financial assistance of Rs. 20 lakhs<\/p>\n
from DW2 by pledging the negative of the film “Sadanandande<\/p>\n
Samayam” in favour of DW2 and at that time certain signed<\/p>\n
stamp papers,             signed letter-heads, promissory notes, blank<\/p>\n
signed cheque leaves            etc.  had been entrusted with DW2 as<\/p>\n
demanded by him, that subsequently the accused had entered<\/p>\n
into Ext.P3 supplementary agreement with              the complainant<\/p>\n
herein who had agreed to settle the entire amount of Rs. 20<\/p>\n
lakhs due to DW2 directly and that the complainant herein had<\/p>\n
accordingly settled the entire dues.           In that lawyer notice, a<\/p>\n
demand was made for return of the documents entrusted with<\/p>\n
D.W.2 at the time of availing of the loan. On 21-6-2003 the<\/p>\n
complainant sent Exts.P2 and P3 cheques for payment to the<\/p>\n
drawee bank.             As per Exts.P4 and P5 dishonour memos both<\/p>\n
dated 24-6-2003 Exts. P2 and P3 cheques were dishonoured by<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                 -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
the drawee bank. On 25-6-2003 Ext. P6 statutory notice was<\/p>\n
issued by the complainant to the accused. In the meanwhile, on<\/p>\n
25-6-2003 the accused gave             Ext.P15 receipt to D.W.2<\/p>\n
acknowledging receipt of the documents which were entrusted<\/p>\n
with DW2 while availing          of the loan of Rs. 20 lakhs.<\/p>\n
Eventhough the 2nd accused examined as DW1 had deposed that<\/p>\n
the accused did not receive back the documents entrusted with<\/p>\n
the financier, DW2 the financier who was examined as a defence<\/p>\n
witness categorically stated that all the documents were returned<\/p>\n
to the accused and Ext.P15 is the receipt issued in the<\/p>\n
handwriting and under the signature of the accused in that<\/p>\n
behalf. Exts.P7 to P9 are the postal acknowledgment cards dated<\/p>\n
27-6-2003, 28-6-2003 and 27-6-2003 respectively evidencing<\/p>\n
due service of Ext.P6 statutory notice on A2 to A4 respectively<\/p>\n
who are the three partners of the first accused firm. Ext.P10 is<\/p>\n
the unclaimed returned envelop containing Ext.P6 statutory<\/p>\n
notice sent to the first accused firm. The complaint was filed on<\/p>\n
8-7-2003 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.<\/p>\n
         5.      The defence argument that Exts. P11 to P14 are<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                      -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
documents which were concocted using the blank signed letter-<\/p>\n
heads given by the accused to DW2 while availing of the loan of<\/p>\n
Rs. 20 lakhs, cannot be accepted for a moment. Ext.P15 is the<\/p>\n
receipt signed by all the three partners of the first accused firm<\/p>\n
acknowledging receipt of the documents which were entrusted by<\/p>\n
them to DW2 while availing of the loan of Rs. 20 lakhs. If the<\/p>\n
accused had received back from DW2 all the documents<\/p>\n
entrusted by them with DW2, there is no possibility for the<\/p>\n
complainant to have access to those documents nor convert four<\/p>\n
of the signed letter-heads into Exts.P11 to P14. It is true that<\/p>\n
Exts.P11 to P14 contain the signatures of all the three partners.<\/p>\n
But it is pertinent to notice that none among accused Nos. 2 to 4<\/p>\n
is a managing partner and that may be the reason why all the<\/p>\n
partners have signed in those letters. In Ext.P15 receipt also,<\/p>\n
all the three partners have signed. DW2, the financier who was<\/p>\n
examined on the side of the accused did not support the defence<\/p>\n
versions.           On the contrary,      he deposed that it was the<\/p>\n
complainant who discharged the loan of Rs. 20 lakhs availed by<\/p>\n
the accused.             The alleged conspiracy or collusion between the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                   -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant and DW2 is nothing but a cock and bull story<\/p>\n
conceived of by the accused to wriggle out of their liability. The<\/p>\n
courts below have carefully evaluated the oral and documentary<\/p>\n
evidence in the case to arrive at the conclusion that the accused<\/p>\n
have committed the offence as alleged. The conviction recorded<\/p>\n
against the revision petitioners\/accused does not call for any<\/p>\n
interference and is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
         6.      What now survives for consideration is the question as<\/p>\n
to whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is<\/p>\n
sustainable or not . The trial court had imposed a fine of Rs.<\/p>\n
10,000\/- on the first accused and on default to pay the fine to<\/p>\n
suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Accused Nos. 2 to<\/p>\n
4 were each sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months<\/p>\n
and to pay fine of Rs. 12 lakhs and on default to pay the fine to<\/p>\n
undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.             The total<\/p>\n
fine amount of Rs. 36,00,000\/- (Rupees thirty six lakhs only)<\/p>\n
imposed on A2 to A4 as and when realised was directed to be<\/p>\n
paid to the complainant as compensation under Sec. 357 (1)(b)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. The lower appellate court modified the sentence deleting<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                                      -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
the default sentence imposed on the first accused.         The lower<\/p>\n
appellate court also            reduced the substantive sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment awarded to accused Nos. 2 to 4 from six months<\/p>\n
to one month. I do not think that penal servitude by way of<\/p>\n
incarceration           is necessary in a prosecution of this nature.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the sentence imposed on revision petitioners 2 to 4<\/p>\n
(A2 to A4) is modified. A2 to A4 shall each pay a fine of Rs. 12<\/p>\n
lakhs and on default to pay the fine the defaulting accused shall<\/p>\n
undergo simple imprisonment for three months.           A2 to A4 are<\/p>\n
given four months time from today to pay to the complainant<\/p>\n
direct or to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. The<\/p>\n
sentence imposed on the first revision petitioner\/ first accused is<\/p>\n
not interfered with. The first accused is given three months time<\/p>\n
to deposit the fine amount before the trial court.<\/p>\n
         In the result this revision is dismissed confirming the<\/p>\n
conviction but modifying the sentence as above<\/p>\n
                                            V. Ramkumar, Judge.\n<\/p>\n
ani\/<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3257 of 2007
\n                             -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
ani\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3257 of 2007() 1. SOWPARNIKA ARTS, … Petitioner 2. JAYASHANKER M., AGED 39 YEARS, 3. V.M.NOUSHAD, AGED 39 YEARS, 4. A.U.SABUDHEEN, AGED 37 YEARS, Vs 1. SHENOY CINEMAX, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-29T16:44:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-29T16:44:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2368,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-29T16:44:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-29T16:44:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-29T16:44:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008"},"wordCount":2368,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008","name":"Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-29T16:44:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sowparnika-arts-vs-shenoy-cinemax-on-25-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sowparnika Arts vs Shenoy Cinemax on 25 June, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}