SURESH JINDAL Vs. RIZZOLI COMERS DELLA SERA PRODZIONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgement of the Learned Single Judge dated 24-8-90 whereby two applications bearing I.A. No. 6439/89 & 790/90 in S.No. 2332 of 1989 moved by the plaintiff for interim relief have been dismissed. The appellant filed a. suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement dated 2nd May 1989. In the said suit, apart from the prayer for specific performance, the plaintiff also made certain prayers regarding mandatory and permanent injunctions. In the first application for interim relief, the following reliefs were sought:

(2.) During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiff moved another application bearing 1.A. No. 790/90' wherein he sought to restrain defendants, from carrying on with the production or exhibition of the aforesaid picture, without the participation and/or involvement, of plaintiff, as one of the producer.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint is that defendants proposed to make in India a mini T.V. serial, titled "The Mysteries of the Dark Jungle" based on an Italian novel. The plaintiff is a renowned film personality in India having several films to his credit. The defendants were unable to make any headway in their project and even the permission of the Govt. of India which was a pre-requisite before the start of such a project had not been received. The plaintiff is said to have been approached by defendant No. 4 for self and on behalf of defendants I to 3 in connection with the making of the said T.V. serial on 30th April 1989. Besides the aspects of arranging Govt. permission for making the T.V. serial in India, the defendants are stated to have consulted the plaintiff on various facilities, conditions and constraints in India for the production of the said T.V. serial. What was essentially desired of the plaintiff was to arrange to get the Govt. of India approval for the project and then to act as a co-producer and discharge all such functions as a coproducer might be required to do. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 2nd May 1989, the defendant No. 4 made an offer to the plaintiff for self and on behalf of defendants I to 3 regarding their intended future relationship which was accepted by the plaintiff. A Memorandum regarding the said offer is contained in an undated handwriting of defendant No, 4 addressed to the plaintiff. The said writing stated to be containing the terms and conditions of the offer was received by the plaintiff on 11th May 1989. Thus, according to the case of the plaintiff, on 2nd May 1989, it was only an oral offer of the defendants which was accepted by the plaintiff and the terms of the offer are contained in the said handwriting of defendant No. 4 stated to have been received by the plaintiff on 11th May 1989. The plaintiff is seeking specific performance of this alleged agreement dated 2nd May 1989. Since the entire case of the plaintiff rests on this document, it may be worthwhile to reproduce the same in toto: