1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 18.04.2023

PRONOUNCED ON :15.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.S.No.914 of 2010

Aarur Tamilnadan
... Applicant/Plaintiff
vs
1.S.Sankar
2.Sun TV Network Limited,
Rep. By its Directors,
Murasoli Maran Towers,
73, MRC Nagar Main Road,
M.R.C. Nagar Chennai – 600 028.
(Amended as per order dated 28.09.2021
in Application No.3227 of 2021) ... Defendants/Respondents

Prayer: Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC r/w Order IV Rule 1 of

the Original Side Rules, 1956, r/w Sections 55 and 62 of the Copyrights Act,

praying to,

(a) Declaration that the plaintiff is the author and first owner of the

copy right of the story “Enthiran” which was stolen/pirated from the original

story “Jugiba” written and got published in April 1996;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 2

(b) Declaring that the film “Enthiran” is the infringing copy of the

plaintiff's story “Jugiba”;

(c) Order directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to

the plaintiff, as damages;

(d) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents,

successors in business, legal representatives, assigns or any person claiming

through them from distributing, screening and exhibiting the infringing copy

namely the “Enthiran” film in any cinema hall, electronic media, open air

theatre, auditorium in any exhibiting device;

(e) A Preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the

defendants to render account of the profit made by the infringing copy namely

“Enthiran” to the plaintiff and a final decree in favour of the plaintiff for the

amount of profits thus found to have been made by the defendants;

(f) Pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case.
For Plaintiff : Mr.G.Vairava Subramanian
for M/s.P.T.Perumal
For Respondents : Mr.Arun C.Mohan
for M/s.D.Saikumaran for D1
Mr.AL.Somayaji (Sr. Advocate)
for M/s.Sneha for D2
M/s.B.K.Girish Neelakandan for D3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 3

JUDGMENT

The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that he is the first

owner of the copyright of the story “Enthiran” which was stolen/pirated from

the original story “Jugiba” written and got published in April 1996. The

plaintiff also sought for further declaration that the film "Enthiran" is the

infringing copy of the plaintiff story "Jugiba" and for a consequential

injunction restraining the defendants from distributing, screening and

exhibiting, infringing copy namely the feature film "Enthiran". The plaintiff

also prayed for direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-

towards damages. He also sought for preliminary decree directing the

defendants to render true account of the profit earned by them by infringing

the copyright of the plaintiff and for a final decree in favour of plaintiff for the

amount of profits thus found to have been earned by the defendants.

2. Plaint Averments

According to the plaintiff, he is a "Prolific" Tamil writer, who claimed

that the plaintiff had written a story about Humanoid Robo “Jugiba” and the

same was first published in a Tamil monthly Magazine "Iniya Udayam"

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 4

during April 1996. The Thumb Nail sketch of the story is as follows:

“A Scientist Robin spends a decade in the computer lab to create a

super power Robot and succeeds. He names it as “Jugiba”. The Robot has

the capacity to store the facts from Adam and Eve to latest Nuclear weapons.

It can move its joints in any directions. It can perceive situations and act

accordingly. It resembles a man and it is capable of all human activities

except pro-creation. The scientist Robin was ready to present his rare

scientific creation to the conference next day. Elated by his own achievement,

Robin calls his love Josephin to his Robot lab to show her his “Jugiba”. In

fact, he had neglected her for about a decade, spending entire life in the lab

with equipments in his endeavour to develop super Robot. Robin introduced

Josephin to “Jugiba” as his lover. “Jugiba” expresses its love to Josephin and

insisted to live with her. Robin explains to Jugiba that it is only a metal and

machine and Josephin is flesh and blood and they cannot live together. On

hearing this, Jugiba cries that it cannot live without Josephin, sheds tears and

jumps from the building into the street and commits suicide.”

3. In the year 2007, the same group of publishers published the very

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 5

same novel in the book titled "Thik Thik Theepika”, this book was sold in all

book stalls and exhibitions. The State Government has also purchased the

copies of the book, for its libraries situated throughout the State. Recently,

the first defendant in his capacity as a story writer and director has made a

film by name "Enthiran" in Tamil and other languages. The film was

produced by defendants 2 and 3. The story of "Enthiran" is nothing but the

story of "Jugiba" written by the plaintiff and published in the year 1996. It

was claimed that after release of the film on 01.10.2010, many friends of the

plaintiff informed him that the film "Enthiran" was made based on the story of

"Jugiba"" in 1996. It was also claimed that though the story "Jugiba" was

published in Tamil monthly magazine "Iniya Udayam" as per the

understanding between the plaintiff and the publisher of "Iniya Udayam", the

plaintiff is the first owner of the copyright. The story of "Jugiba" is pirated in

the film "Enthiran" and the defendants never obtained any permission from

the plaintiff. In spite of the knowledge that the plaintiff is the first owner of

the copyright of the story, the defendants have illegally stolen the story of the

plaintiff and have made a mega film of "Enthiran". The defendants made

huge profits by releasing the film "Enthiran" in Tamil and other languages all

over the world. The plaintiff is entitled to claim damagers as per the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 6

provisions of the Copyright Act. On these pleadings, the plaintiff sought for

the above said reliefs.

4. Averments found in the written statement of the first defendant:

It was claimed by the first defendant, the story of Humanoid Robots is

several decades old and the plaintiff cannot claim to be a scientist who

invented the concept of Humanoid Robot. The averment in the plaint that the

film "Enthiran" is a pirated version of the story "Jugiba" was specifically

denied. It was claimed by the first defendant, the story line of the film

"Enthiran" is completely different. It was claimed that for several decades, the

basic knowledge about the Humanoid Robot is one and the same and many

movies in the past have described Humanoid Robot and as such there is no

justification for the plaintiff to file the present suit. A reading and comparison

of the defendants creation "Enthiran" and the alleged story of the plaintiff

would establish that his story is a different one and an original creation of

him. The defendant in his written statements had pointed out the following

dissimilarities in his story line "Enthiran".

(a) The Robot looks very much like the scientist who created it;

(b) The scientist created it for serving Indian Army;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 7

(c) The robot does not have any feelings initially and only after several

accidents, with great difficulty the scientist imparted feelings in the robot;

(d) The robot has been loaded with destruction software chip by the

villain and it turns violent and becomes a villain in the mid-half and

subsequently after removal of the chip it becomes normal;

(e) In the end, the robot was dismantled as per Court order and kept in

a scientific Museum;

(f) The robot creates several robots to serve him and fight with

humans.

5. It was claimed by the 1st defendant that there cannot be copyright in

an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical legendary facts. The

violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner

arrangement and expression of the idea by author of the copyright work. It is

claimed that the movie "Enthiran" is a original work of the first defendant and

he has got first right of ownership over the copyright.

6. Averments found in the written statement filed by the defendants 2 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 8

3:

It was claimed by the defendants 2 and 3 that the story of the

defendants was presented and treated differently from that of the alleged story

of the plaintiff and therefore, there cannot be a question of violation of

copyright. It was further claimed that the plaintiff has come up with this suit

because of the huge success of the film. It was also stated that three other

persons have also approached the Court for similar relief. It was also claimed

that the film is not based on the story of the plaintiff, but it was based on the

work of late Sujatha who conceived the story. It was also claimed that after

witnessing the success of the movie with the people, the plaintiff has come up

with this suit with the intention to gain unjust enrichment. Therefore, the

defendants 2 and 3 sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. On the basis of the above said pleadings the following issues were

framed by this Court on 27.06.2016:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is the author and first owner of the copy right

of the story Enthiran, which was stolen from the original story?;

(ii) Whether the film Enthiran is the infringed story of the plaintiff's

'Jugiba'?;

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claim of damages?;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 9

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent

injunction as prayed for?;

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for production of accounts by the

defendants of the profit made by infringing the plaintiff's story?;

(vi) To what other reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled?

8. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and twelve documents were

marked on the side of the plaintiff as Exs.P1 to P12. The Authorised

Signatory of the 3rd defendant was examined as DW.1. No documents were

marked on the side of the defendants.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the

film "Enthiran" was based on the story "Jugiba" written in the year 1996 and

hence, the defendants have committed infringement of the copyright.

10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff by taking this Court to Exs.P1

and P2 submitted that those two documents established that the story of

Humanoid Robots was written by the plaintiff under the name "Jugiba" in the

year 1996 itself. The learned counsel further by referring to Ex.P3 submitted

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 10

that the first defendant in his speech during audio release of the film

"Enthiran". admitted on 31.07.2010 he conceived the story line ten years

back. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff

that the film "Enthiran" is the pirated version of his story "Jugiba" published

in the year 1996 under Ex.P1 and re-published in 2007 under Ex.P2.

11. The learned counsel by taking this Court to Exs.P5 and P6

submitted that he got necessary sanction from the publisher of the book

"Iniya Udhayam" for filing the present suit and hence he should be treated as

the copyright owner of the story and entitled to maintain the suit. The learned

counsel by taking this Court to the various letters written by readers under

Ex.P7 submitted that the letters written by 3rd parties, who had seen the film

"Enthiran" establish, the film was based on plaintiff's story "Jugiba" and

therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that "Enthiran" is a pirated version of

his story "Jugiba" stands proved. Therefore, the learned counsel for the

plaintiff requested this Court to pass a decree as prayed for in the plaintiff.

12. The learned counsel for the first defendant submitted that the story

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 11

of Humanoid Robot has been in existence for decades and number of

holly wood films were shot based on the concept of Humanoid Robots. The

learned counsel submitted that no person can claim the copyright over any

idea and the copyright is confined only to the form of expression. The learned

counsel further submitted that the plaintiff's literary work is based on the idea

of Robot, falling in love with girl. However, in the "Enthiran" film shot by the

first defendant, the Robot was initially developed for Indian Army. It was

struck by lightening and thereafter, started learning about human feelings.

Subsequently, the ROBOT falls in love with the Heroine, but unfortunately,

the villain re-programed the Robot, so as to make it as an evil force to destroy

the city. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the brief sequence of

event in the film, wherein, the Humanoid Robot falling in love with heroine is

only a minuscule part of the story line of the defendants movie which

involved various other concepts mentioned above other than the idea of Robot

falling in love with heroine. Therefore, the learned counsel further submitted

that the story line of the film "Enthiran" completely different from that of the

story line of the plaintiff's story "Jugiba". The learned counsel also submitted

that the number of films were released from 1962 onwards based on the

concept of Humanoid Robot and therefore merely because the defendants film

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 12

"Enthiran" is based on the concept of Humanoid Robot it cannot be treated as

a pirated version. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the

suit.

13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the defendants 2

and 3 submitted that the plaintiff failed to plead the story line of the

defendants film "Enthiran" and produce any material evidence to show that

the story line of the defendants film is an infringing copy of plaintiff's story

"Jugiba". The learned senior counsel submitted that no person can claim

copyright over any idea, theme and copyright is confined to the expression of

the idea by the author. In the present case, the plaintiff failed to examine any

person who had read the story of the plaintiff and viewed the film of the

defendants to prove that the story line of the defendants' film is based on the

plaintiff's story "Jiguba". The learned counsel by taking this Court to the

series of letters marked as Ex.P7 allegedly written by the 3rd parties submitted

that the letters were written by 3rd parties from Tanjore and Pudukkottai, but

it contains continuous courier serial numbers. Therefore, it is the submission

of the learned senior counsel that Ex.P7 is a concocted document. It was also

submitted by the learned senior counsel that as per the averments of the

plaintiff, he had written the story "Jugiba" while he was working as sub editor

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 13

in Nakkiran Magazine and alleged that the story was published in "Iniya

Udhayam". Therefore, as per the provision of Copyright Act, the publisher

of the book is the first owner of the copyright, unless there is an agreement to

the contrary. The plaintiff having failed to produce any agreement to the

contrary between him and the publisher of the said magazine is not entitled to

claim that he is the first owner of the copyright over the story "Jugiba"'. The

learned senior counsel submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove that the

defendants' story line in film "Enthiran" is identical to that of his story

"Jugiba" by producing material evidence before the Court and having failed to

establish the same, the suit filed by him is liable to be dismissed. In support

of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied on the judgment in

(1978 ) 4 SCC 118 in R.G.Anand Vs. M/s.Delux Films and others.

14. Issues No.1 and 2:

The present suit was laid by the plaintiff mainly on the ground

that the defendants' film "Enthiran" was based on the story, originally written

by him in the year 1996 under Ex.P1 with the name “Jugiba”.

15. In support of his contention, the plaintiff entered the box and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 14

deposed as PW.1 and he was extensively cross examined by the counsel for

the defendants, with regard to the various dissimilarities in the story line of

the plaintiff story "Jugiba" and the story line in defendants' story "Enthiran".

It is the specific case of the defendants that as per their story Humanoid

Robots created by the scientists resembles the face of the scientists who

developed it. When suggestion was put to PW.1 that in his story Robot does

not resemble the face of hero, he answered that in his story, he had not stated

that Robot resembled the physical figure or face of hero. As per the

defendants averments in their story, the Robot was created for serving Indian

Army, when it was suggested to PW.1, as per his story Robot was not created

for serving Indian Army, he answered that he depicted Robot to suit the needs

of entire world. Further when it was suggested to PW.1 that in "Enthiran"

movie, the Robot had been broken and thrown into the dustbin by

inventor/hero, he answered that in his story the character of Robot would

commit suicide but in "Enthiran" story, the Robot was forced to commit

suicide. It was further suggested to PW.1 that in "Enthiran" story, when

Robot had been broken and thrown into dustbin, it would be taken by the

villain, repaired and revived for destructive purpose, he answered that for the

sake of cinema they had added some sequences songs, fight scenes,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 15

animations and improved the story to suit cinema audience. When a

suggestion was put to PW.1 that on the basis of Humanoid Robots several

hollywood movies were released, he answered that he had heard about them

but had not seen them. When it was suggested to PW.1 that in his story

"Jugiba" there were only three characters namely, the scientist, Robot Jugiba

and Josephine, he answered in affirmative and added the defendants movie

story concept was depending upon his concept.

16. A close reading of evidence of PW.1, would make it clear, there are

number of dissimilarities between his story "Jugiba" and the story of

defendants film "Enthiran". He himself admitted during the course of

evidence that the defendants have made additions to his story to suit the

cinema audience. He also added that concept of the story line in defendants'

film "Enthiran" is based on his story "Jugiba". It is settled law, nobody can

claim any copyright over an idea or concept. The copyright can be claimed

only in respect of the manner of expression of idea or concept. In this regard,

it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in

(1978 ) 4 SCC 118 in R.G.Anand Vs. M/s.Delux Films and others, which

reads as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 16

45. Thus, the position appears to be that an idea,

principle, theme, or subject matter or historical or
legendary facts being common property cannot be the
subject matter of copyright of a particular person. It is
always open to any person to choose an idea as a subject
matter and develop it in his own manner and give
expression to the idea by treating it differently from others.
Where two writers write on the same subject similarities are
bound to occur because the central idea of both are the
same but the similarities or coincidences by themselves
cannot lead to an irresistible inference of plagiarism or
piracy. Take for instance the great poet and dramatist
Shakespeare most of whose plays are based on Greek-
Roman and British mythology or legendary stories like
Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, Romeo Juliet, Jullius Caesar
etc. But the treatment of the subject by Shakespeare in each
of his dramas is so fresh, so different, so full of poetic
exuberance, elegance and erudition and so novel in
character as a result of which the end product becomes an
original in itself. In fact, the power and passion of his
expression, the uniqueness, eloquence and excellence of his
style and pathos and bathos of the dramas become peculiar
to Shakespeare and leaves precious little of the original
theme adopted by him. It will thus be preposterous to level a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 17

charge of plagiarism against the great play-wright. In fact,

thoughout his original thinking, ability and incessant labour
Shakespeare has converted an old idea into a new one, so
that each of the dramas constitutes a master-piece of
English literature. It has been rightly said that "every
drama of Shakespeare is an extended metaphor". Thus, the
fundamental fact which has to be determined where a
charge of violation of the copyright is made by the plaintiff
against the defendant is to determine whether or not the
defendant not only adopted the idea of the copyrighted
work but has also adopted the manner, arrangement,
situation to situation, scene to scene with minor changes or
super additions or embellishment here and there. Indeed, if
on a perusal of the copyrighted work the defendant's work
appears to be a transparent rephrasing or a copy of a
substantial and material part of the original, the charge of
plagiarism must stand proved. Care however must be taken
to see whether the defendant has merely disguised piracy or
has actually reproduced the original in a different form,
different tone, different tenor so as to infuse a new life into
the idea of the copyrighted work adapted by him. In the
latter case there is no violation of the copyright.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 18

46. Thus, on a careful consideration and

elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the
subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge :
1 . There can be no copyright in an idea, subject
matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and
violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the
form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by
the author of the copyright work.
2. Where the same idea is being developed in a
different manner, it is manifest that the source being common,
similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts
should determine whether or not the similarities are on
fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression
adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendant's work is
nothing but a literal limitation of the copyrighted work with
some variations here and there it would amount to violation
of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the
copy must be a substantial and material one which at once
leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act
of piracy.
3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine
whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to
see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or
seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 19

unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to

be a copy of the original.
4. Where the theme is the same but is presented
and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a
completely new work, no question of violation of copyright
arises.
5. Where however apart from the similarities
appearing in the two works there are also material and broad
dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the
original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are
clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes
into existence.
6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of
piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after
applying the various tests laid down by the case law
discussed above.
7. Where however the question is of the violation of the
copyright of stage play by a film producer or a Director the
task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It
is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader
prospective, a wider field and a bigger background where the
defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a
colour and complexion different from the manner in which the
copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 20

viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that

the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation
of the copyright may be said to be proved.

17. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.G.Anand Vs.

M/s.Delux Films and others, there can be no copyright over an idea or

concept. A reading of the evidence of PW.1 would make it clear that both the

story of the plaintiff and the defendant are based on Humanoid Robots.

However, as seen by the admissions of PW.1 to various suggestions made to

him during cross examination, with regard to the dissimilarities in the story

line of defendant's film "Enthiran", the story of Humanoid robot appeared to

have been presented to audience by the defendants with a different

expression. PW.1-himself had admitted there are additions to suit the cinema

audience. When both the stories are based on the same idea namely

Humanoid robot falling in love with a human being, similarities, are bound to

occur. As held by the Apex Court in R.G.Anand Vs. M/s.Delux Films and

others, it is for the Courts to determine, whether the similarities are

fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression. The plaintiff

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 21

has not examined any independent witnesses to prove that the similarities in

the story of the plaintiff and the story of the defendants' film "Enthiran" are so

fundamental to make it as a literal imitation of plaintiff''s story. He could have

examined independent witness, who had read his story and watched the

defendants' movie to establish that the defendants' story is nothing but a literal

imitation of plaintiff's story. For the reason best known to the plaintiff, he

failed to examine any independent witnesses. Therefore, except the interested

testimony of PW.1, there is no evidence available on record to show that the

story of the defendants movie is literal imitation of plaintiff's story.

18. The learned counsel for the plaintiff by relying on series of letters

marked under Ex.P7 submitted that the 3rd parties had written to the plaintiff

about the similarities of the defendants' story. The first letter under Ex.P7 was

written by one S.B.Manimaran from Pattukkottai, dated 20.10.2010. The

second letter was written by one Palanivel, dated 20.10.2010 from

Keeramangalam, Pudukkottai District. The 3rd letter dated 21.10.2010 was

written by one Somasundaram of Tiruvarur. The letters were marked with

the covers. As seen from the covers, the courier serial number for the first

letter is 014439042077, the Courier Serial number for the second letter is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 22

014439042078; both were sent from Pattukkottai (PTK). Though

Manimaran had his residence at Pattukkottai and Palanivel had his residence

at Keeramangalm, Pudukottai District both the letters were sent on same date

from Pattukkottai with successive serial numbers. When the same was

pointed out to PW.1, during his cross examination, PW.1 answered evasively

by saying they might be friends and they might have despatched the letters

from single courier office. In fact, one person is living in Pattukkottai and

another person is living in a village at Pudukottai District. Hence, similar

letters on the same day by same courier with successive serial numbers

appears to be un-natural to this Court. Therefore, Ex.P7 series cannot be

taken into consideration in the absence of any other evidence. The plaintiff

could have very well examined any other independent witness in support of

his case. In that case, the defendants would have got an opportunity to cross

examine alleged authors of Ex.P7. For the reason best known to him, he has

not chosen to examine any other independent witness in support of his case

that the story line of the defendants is pirated version of the plaintiff story.

Therefore, there is no acceptable evidence available on record except the

interested oral testimony of the plaintiff that the story line of the defendants'

film is a literal imitation of plaintiff's story. The plaintiff has not produced

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 23

any material to compare the story line of the defendants with that of the

plaintiff. At the minimum, the plaintiff should have issued a notice to the

defendants calling upon them to produce the story line or script of the

defendants' story "Enthiran". The plaintiff has not made any such attempt to

enable the Court to compare the story line. As discussed earlier, he also failed

to examine any independent witnesses to prove that the story line of the

defendants is literal imitation of plaintiff's story line. In such circumstances,

the plaintiff failed to prove his case that the defendants' story "Enthiran" is the

pirated version of plaintiff's story "Jugiba" and consequently, the issue Nos.1

and 2 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

19. Issue Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6:

In view of the conclusion reached by this Court in issue No.1 and 2,

the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in this suit. Hence, issues 3 and 6 are

answered against the plaintiff and consequently, the suit is liable to be

dismissed.

20. In Nutshell:

The suit is dismissed and the plaintiff is directed to pay the cost of the

suit to the defendants.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 24

15.06.2023
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
ub

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
 25

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

ub

Pre-Delivery Order made in

C.S.No.914 of 2010

15.06.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis