PATEL ENTERPRISES BANGALORE Vs. M P AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal is by the third defendant against an order made in la. Iii in o.s. No. 10511 of 1992, on the file of the court of vi additional city civil judge at Bangalore. By that Order, the third defendant was restrained from receiving and defendants 1 and 2 were restrained from paying the amount involved, to the third defendant.

(2.) according to the plaintiff, it obtained the rights in respect of a film called "haathi mera saathi" under an agreement dated 31-12-1986 from M/s. Vijayalaxmi movies at Madras, which had earlier acquired all the rights of distribution, exhibition, exploitation and negative rights including t.v. and video cassette rights in the said film. The film was produced earlier by M/s. Devar films. It seems that M/s. Vijayalaxmi movies leased the said rights to M/s. Manjusha films on 21-6-1976 and M/s. Manjusha films, in turn, conveyed these rights to the plaintiff under an agreement dated 31-12-1986. Thereafter, the plaintiff corresponded with the doordarshan for the telecasting of the film on the national net work. According to the plaintiff, at one stage, the plaintiff withdrew the offer made to the doordarshan, but thereafter again withdrew the said withdrawal offer because the contract had been concluded by that time. On 27-6-1992, doordarshan did telecast the picture. In the meanwhile, according to the plaintiff, doordarshan wrote to the plaintiff on 6th november, 1989 requiring the plaintiff to produce all documents justifying the plaintiff's claim over the film including t.v. video and video cassette rights on the ground that there has been a rival claim made by the third defendant. The plaintiff asserted his exclusive right over the film and pointed out that the claim of the third defendant was neither genuine nor true; it was the plaintiff who had supplied the print for taking out a cassette for the national telecast by the doordarshan (which is the second defendant in the suit) and the second defendant had got a video cassette out of the said print sent by the plaintiff. We are told that this cassette is generally referred as u-matic cassette. The doordarshan insisted that the plaintiff should send a fresh agreement from the producer of the film stating that the t.v. rights also had been given to the plaintiff. There is a reference to some more correspondence which we need not elaborate at present. However, ultimately, the film was telecast on the national net work. According to the plaintiff, there has been an offer and proper acceptance and therefore there was a concluded contract enforceable at law between the plaintiff and the second defendant. This offer to telecast the picture was for a royalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- and that offer was made by the second defendant, and the plaintiff had accepted the said offer. In these circumstances, the plaint asserts that the said contract cannot be resiled from by any one of the parties. According to the plaintiff, the particulars of the claim made by the third defendant were not made available to the plaintiff. However, the second defendant proceeded to deny the claim of the plaintiff without giving him an opportunity of verifying the rival claim put forth and that an Ex. Parte decision was taken by the second defendant against the plaintiff rejecting the plaintiff's claim; this is characterised as opposed to the principles of natural Justice and fairness, and therefore illegal and void. The plaintiff further asserts that defendants 1 and 2 are estopped from questioning the plaintiff about his claim to have the film telecast and that the said defendants have unjustly enriched themselves at the cost of the plaintiff. Therefore, paragraph 9 of the plaint concludes stating that defendants 1 and 2 are liable to make good damages to the plaintiff in this behalf, which he estimates at Rs. 4,00,000/-. The telecasting of the film on 27th june, 1992, according to the plaintiff, was in flagrant violation of the contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 at the instance of the third defendant. The steps taken to pay the royalty to the third defendant is part of this flagrant violation of the contract (vide paragraph 10 of the plaint). It is alleged that the plaintiff has suffered a legal injury and hence the suit is filed to enforce his just and legal entitlements. Paragraph 11 of the plaint states that the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 and 2 to pay the royalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the plaintiff and to none else and that the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction against the third defendant not to receive the payment of any royalty from defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the film in question. The plaint contains the following prayer:

(3.) according to the third defendant, the plaintiff is only a film distributor. The film in question was produced by M/s. Devar films at Madras. According to the third defendant, it obtained the t. V. Rights under an agreement dated 8-8-1989 from M/s. Vijayakumari films at Bangalore, which in turn had obtained it from the producer under an agreement dated 11-11-1988. The case of the third defendant is that it has the exclusive t. V. Rights of the film in question and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim any benefit out of the telecast made by the doordarshan and that the royalty will have to be paid to the third defendant and not to the plaintiff. The third defendant also questioned the format of the suit.