A A ASSOCIATES Vs. PREM GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s A A Associates, plaintiff is a registered partnership. It is carrying on business of film distribution, exhibition and exploitation of cinematographic films in the territory of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. It has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.5 lakhs on account of damages besides seeking a permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants 2 to 4 from in any manner telecasting the film (Majboor) on Doordarshan, ZEE TV, Satellite TV, Cable TV, Pay TV and other TVs. and defendant no.1 should further be directed to restrain from making any payments of the telecasting charges to defendants 2 to 4.

(2.) The facts alleged are that the plaintiff had acquired the sole and exclusive rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the picture Majboor. An agreement in this regard was arrived at on 20/3/1987. The rights were available to the plaintiff uptil 9th July, 2007. Defendant no.2 (M/s Suchitra Films Pvt. Ltd.) is a film producer of the said film. There was an agreement between defendants 1 and 2 and defendant no.2 assigned the sole and exclusive rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the said film uptil 9/7/2007, Defendant no.1 in turn assigned the said rights to the plaintiff and he has been enjoying the said rights. It is the plaintiff, as per the agreement, who alone can deal with the rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation pertaining to the said film. The commercial rights of the feature film has been purchased by the plaintiff and as per the plaintiff, it includes all circumstances unless expressly included including telecasting rights on television i.e. Doordarshan, Cable TV, Pay TV and other television channels.

(3.) Since the television has become popular therefore it is stated to be a matter of concern in the film trade and the respective associations of the distributors and producers have recognised the said telecasting rights and the Motion Picture Association which is a body looking after the interest have also issued various circulars from time to time to clarify that commercial rights in the distribution, exhibition and exploitation include in it the telecasting rights. The grievance of the plaintiff is that all of a sudden he was shocked to know the telecasting of the said film on Delhi Doordarshan on its national network on 2/2/1991. On enquiry it was revealed that defendant no.2 in utter disregard of that fact had telecasted the said film on Delhi Doordarshan on the said date. Since the telecasting rights were illegal a civil suit was filed. During the pendency of that suit the defendants were restrained from receiving the payment the matter was settled and Rs.90,000.00 was paid to the plaintiff by virtue of the compromise. Thereafter, the plaintiff had continued to enjoy the said rights.